Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps

[<[e-mail]>]

There is also the I-D for a Web Service specification...
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doherty-keyprov-ct-kip-ws/

I proposed this to the group awhile back and we said we'd defer any
go/no-go decision on this until DSKPP spec advanced.

Andrea
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; KEYPROV
Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps

Hi Phillip, 

this is indeed great news!

There is one document on PSKC algorithm profiles that would need to get
finished. Here is the current version: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm-prof
iles/

In  a chat with Anders we were also wondering whether a JSON encoding of
PSKC would be useful. This would allow us easier integration with
JavaScript into the browser. 

The first document does not necessarily need to go through a working
group; it could also be an AD sponsored document or directly sent to the
RFC Editor. The second document obviously does not yet exist. 

Regarding interoperability: I am actually always in favor of doing
interoperability testing (in a lightweight fashion -- potentially over
the Internet with some test cases we go through). It would be
interesting to know where we are with regard to running code.

Ciao
Hannes

On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> As of this morning all KEYPROV drafts are in state RFC-Ed Queue
> 
> draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat	-11
2010-08-09  	RFC Ed Queue
> draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc	-09	ipr		2010-08-02
RFC Ed Queue
> draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp	-14	ipr		2010-09-07
RFC Ed Queue
> 
> First, congratulations and thanks for all the hard work.
> 
> Could authors ensure that they respond to questions from the RFC
editor so that we can get into AUTH48 as soon as possible and publish
the RFCs before Beijing.
> 
> 
> This completes our charter items and leads to the question of next
steps. In particular do we want to progress from PROPOSED standard to
whatever comes next?
> 
> From my point of view, this actually depends on whether there is a
change from a three step process to two. At the moment a lot of IETF
specs languish at PROPOSED and there is safety in numbers. If there is a
move to a two step process I think it more likely that completing the
IETF process and being promoted to STANDARD will become an expectation.
> 
> 
> Assuming the criteria for progress will remain the same as those for
DRAFT status, the main things we will need to do are (1) recharter and
(2) demonstrate that we have 2 interoperable implementations for each
specification feature.
> 
> Rechartering will of course be subject to the approval of the ADs.
> 
> What do people in the group think about this?
> 
> -- 
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> KEYPROV mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

_______________________________________________
KEYPROV mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov