Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] AD review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-camellia-cts

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:42 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 09/10/2012 05:24 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments, Stephen.
> > 
> > On 09/07/2012 09:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >> - The IPR declaration (#1304) is noted in the write-up
> >> but not specifically associated with this draft, so
> >> it wouldn't show up so easily for reviewers but I can
> >> call that out specifically in the IETF LC message, but
> >> there is another issue: that declaration refers for
> >> example to things that are required for compliance
> >> with a standard. However, the wg are proposing this
> >> as informational, so it may be less clear to IETF
> >> LC reviewers if the terms in the declaration apply
> >> or not. Did the WG consider that difference when
> >> deciding to go for informational?
> > 
> > I don't believe we specifically considered this issue, no.  In theory,
> > the same ambiguity could apply to a "proposed standard" or "draft
> > standard," perhaps with lower probability.  Is there anything you'd like
> > us to do about this before last call beside answer the specific question?
> 
> Nope, your answer above does it for me.
> 
> If someone wants to bring this ambiguity to the attention
> of the IPR holding folks and if they would like to update
> their text then that'd be lovely but our process doesn't
> call for them to have to do that.
> 
> Otherwise, it turns out the easiest thing is for me (or
> whoever wants to if someone else is in the mood) to post
> a 3rd party IPR declaration just saying that the current
> declaration (#1304) looks like its relevant to this draft
> and then start IETF LC and the right pointers will exist.
> (Yes, that's an irritating and clunky process, but I
> asked the IESG and its what two other ADs suggested,
> better ideas welcome;-)
> 
> All your answers below also look fine, so I'll do the
> above and start IETF LC tomorrow unless the WG chairs
> tell me they'd rather some other plan e.g. they might
> prefer you issue the update now or not, or they might
> want to wait a bit to see if another IPR declaration
> is going to be done, but let's leave that call to the
> chairs.

I don't expect another IPR declaration.  At the time this work was
started, declarations had been filed in relation to a number of other
protocols, but not for Kerberos.  The working group requested a
declaration relating to Kerberos, and one was filed.  This draft did not
yet exist in its present form and with its present filename, so it is
not surprising that declaration doesn't refer to it.  I'm certainly not
going to back to the authors now and ask that they do extra work to make
sure the draft filename is listed, when our process does not require
that.


Aside from that, I have no opinion on whether the update should be
submitted before or after going to IETF LC; I was going to defer to you
on that point.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg