Re: Publication track for IBE documents (Was Second Last Call...)

So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
the (elegant but not especially useful) crypto has been around
for a while without finding any serious applications.

Stephen.

Tim Polk wrote:
> Okay, I fat fingered this one.  The S/MIME WG actually forwarded these
> documents
> with a recommendation that they be published as Informational.  I
> intended to respect
> that consensus, but for one reason or another, they ended up in the
> Tracker marked
> for Standards track.
> 
> It is clear that the WG got this one right, and I have changed the
> intended status on
> both documents to Informational.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim Polk
> 
>> Harald wrote:
>>
>>> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf