Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps

The PSKC algorithm profiles is currently submitted as an individual
submission which is why it is not showing up in the tracker as a keyprov
item.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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-profiles/
>
> 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
> > KEYPROV@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov
>
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/