Transport Layer Security (tls)

Paul Hoffman | 8 May 2012 23:13

draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey and updating RFC 6091: a proposed solution

Greetings again. A few of us commenting on draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey have had an issue that this draft is
meant to be on standards track, but it is updating (and relying on parts of) RFC 6091. We have suggested some
ways of changing draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey to maybe make this work, hoping that this is OK.

A much simpler method would simply be to move RFC 6091 to standards track. This can be done without a new
Internet Draft version of RFC 6019, and even without a full WG Last Call. The WG chairs (that's the two folks
on the To: line) can simply ask the AD (that's the person on the Cc:) to make this happen. This is fully
allowed by the IETF procedures (see RFC 2026, section 6.1.1), and the most process-obsessed member of the
IESG has told me that this would be just fine.

WG chairs: please consider asking the AD to do this. It would make draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey much
cleaner, and would really harm no one.

--Paul Hoffman

headers

Paul Wouters | 9 May 2012 07:16

Re: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey and updating RFC 6091: a proposed solution

On Tue, 8 May 2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> A much simpler method would simply be to move RFC 6091 to standards track. This can be done without a new
Internet Draft version of RFC 6019, and even without a full WG Last Call. The WG chairs (that's the two folks
on the To: line) can simply ask the AD (that's the person on the Cc:) to make this happen. This is fully
allowed by the IETF procedures (see RFC 2026, section 6.1.1), and the most process-obsessed member of the
IESG has told me that this would be just fine.
>
> WG chairs: please consider asking the AD to do this. It would make draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey much
cleaner, and would really harm no one.

That would indeed be nice. I'll wait with a draft update until we hear
back regarding this.

Thanks Paul,

Paul