Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Ask and ye shall receive:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8789


On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:15 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Auth48 != published.
>
> Until the doc is announced as an RFC, it remains a draft.
>
> Joe
>
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Black, David <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
>
> > Whoa… let’s be clear.
>
>
>
> Actually, Ekr was clear ... he just left out a few crucial details ;-).
>
>
>
> According to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational/history/,
> draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational was approved by the IESG
> in early March and is now in AUTH48 (Authors’ final review) state at the
> RFC Editor.
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>
>
> *From:* tsvwg <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Joseph Touch
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2020 6:57 PM
> *To:* Eric Rescorla
> *Cc:* Mike Bishop; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope):
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Whoa… let’s be clear.
>
>
>
> At this time, all we know is that there is a DRAFT proposing to change the
> process. That draft itself has not been published.
>
>
>
> So it’s premature to claim that the draft represents IETF consensus yet;
> as such, it HAS NOT **YET** affected anything.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Keeping in mind that the target is publication as an Informational RFC, I
> believe the governing BCP definition is still
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.2, which says
>
>
>
> 4.2.2  Informational
>
>    An "Informational" specification is published for the general
>    information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
>    Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
>    designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
>    very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
>    sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
>    that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
>    (see section 4.2.3).
>
>
>
> Does anyone think that's been updated?
>
>
>
> Indeed it has:
>
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>