Re: Second Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms (Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard

SM wrote:
> At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
>> This is a second last call for consideration of the following document
>> from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime):
>>
>> - 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption
>>    Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) '
>>    <draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> Technical issues raised in IETF Last Call and IESG evaluation have been
>> resolved.  However, there have been substantive changes in the relevant
>> IPR disclosures statements since the review process was initiated.
>> Specifically, IPR disclosure statement #888,
>>            (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/888/)
>> was replaced by PR disclosure statement #950,
>>            (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/950/)
>>
>> This Last Call is intended to confirm continued community support in
>> light of the new IPR disclosure statement.  Given the limited scope of
>> this Last Call, an abbreviated time period has been selected.
>
> Disclosure statement #888 mentions draft-martin-ibcs-08.  That I-D was 
> published as RFC 5091 in December 2007.   Disclosure #950 submitted in 
> May 2008 mentions new licensing terms for RFC 5091.  That disclosure 
> mentions that draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10 is on the Informational 
> Track whereas it is on the Standards Track.
>
> As there seems to be only one implementation and very little public 
> discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the 
> Standards Track. 
With licensing terms like these, I would want to see a compelling 
argument for why the community needs it standardized to put it on the 
standards track.

Let it be informational.

                  Harald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf