[KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 13:41 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: keyprov@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: keyprov@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151903A6B9E for <keyprov@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nG9aLJ-d0+uQ for <keyprov@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3083A69C8 for <keyprov@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so220911wwd.13 for <keyprov@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=OdsPi9nt989DoahFbSmyiH4SxXRWMh9VkqAT4u4k18I=; b=Z6vRK6hqGfM+AhhsifrumM1mURjN1xdU4ctI3f+ZU1I8DM2U4mYqkZL7JKEAH55l0z W7d42HxLLjkAJno+BInLUgIUJ2N/SIht2A96sOjh9fpTzTGT/GdmnM9eGnTV0E5NdLKJ LqMw4nJHqDKUBc/7ifmL4jk4CLlUO7uiGuenY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=SRqEeuXSu4plcKPVjJdhQYGTAEgWbqP7uCMHWAQr/jInf/HCGvoI6nCn7MBOrHiTUq dG895XYaf1NlphPj15/nj33RM2puc7kP3IRIBjzesNlyn0qihTlLzXjuvfrtdRaz2rdj YdMSkpxhP5GaFCgoEoJsEZHjTmgReEKt3L7ic=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.128.8 with SMTP id i8mr2929023wbs.91.1285335695166; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.163.195 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:41:35 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=b5xMJd=butALLQS3dB7Q79qvByq5qJAOHChRY@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: KEYPROV <keyprov@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636833ed4871bc4049101891a"
Subject: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps
X-BeenThere: keyprov@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Provisioning of Symmetric Keys \(keyprov\)" <keyprov.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov>, <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/keyprov>
List-Post: <mailto:keyprov@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov>, <mailto:keyprov-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:41:46 -0000
As of this morning all KEYPROV drafts are in state RFC-Ed Queue draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat/> -11 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat> 2010-08-09 RFC Ed Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat> draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc/> -09 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc>ipr<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc> 2010-08-02 RFC Ed Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc> draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp/> -14 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp>ipr<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp> 2010-09-07 RFC Ed Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp> 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] Status and Next Steps Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps andrea.doherty
- Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps Phillip Hallam-Baker