Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
To: Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov>
Subject: Re: future of tls-authz

I got your message. I'll have to think about the response. It'll take a
few days.

Thanks,

			--Dean

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Tim Polk wrote:

> Dean,
> 
> I don^Òt believe we have met, but I joined the IESG as an Area  
> Director for Security in March.  As part of my duties as AD, I am  
> considering sponsor the tls-authz draft for consideration as an  
> Experimental track RFC.  Given the complexity of the situation, I  
> would appreciate your input before I proceed.
> 
> As a new AD, I would prefer not to pick up tls-authz ^Ö this job is  
> hard enough without seeking controversy!  However, I am convinced of  
> the technical merits of the document, and believe it should be  
> published as an RFC.  As the AD for TLS, the responsibility to  
> progress the document falls squarely on my shoulders.
> 
> In addition to the technical contents of the document, I factored the  
> existence of independent implementations and the murky IPR situation  
> into my deliberations.  Given all of the inputs, I have come to the  
> conclusion that tls-authz is appropriate for publication as an  
> experimental track RFC.  To quote RFC 2026, ^ÓSuch a specification is  
> published for the general information of the Internet technical  
> community and as an archival record of the work.^Ô   I believe that  
> the TLS working group^Òs review of the document satisfies the  
> requirement for ^Óadequate coordination with the standards process.^Ô   
> While some have advocated standards track for this specification, I  
> do not believe that all the properties of a proposed standard are  
> satisfied by the document.  Specifically, it is not clear if the  
> document ^Óappears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered  
> valuable^Ô in light of the IPR issues.
> 
> I am having a little trouble sorting out the applicable procedures  
> from this starting point, though.  My reading of RFC 2026 indicates  
> two possibilities:
> 
> (1) Under section 6.1.2, I could request IESG approval as an  
> Experimental RFC based on the results of the second IETF Last Call  
> for progression on standards track.  ^ÓThe IESG could also decide to  
> change the publication category based on the response to a Last- 
> Call.^Ô  This process would be most efficient, but the optics are not  
> optimal.
> 
> (2) I could request a third IETF Last Call for consideration as an  
> experimental track document.  I simply hate the idea of a third Last  
> Call for this document, since we haven^Òt identified any technical  
> issues during the first two rounds, but this would provide an  
> opportunity to clearly demonstrate that sufficient support for  
> publication in the Experimental track exists even with the IPR  
> situation.
> 
> Given that alternative technical proposals have not been submitted,  
> and the TLS working group is not interested in taking this document  
> on, I don^Òt see any other mechanism to complete this work.
> 
> I would greatly value your input on the two processes I outlined  
> above.  Which of these processes would be most appropriate in your  
> opinion, given this starting point?  Does an alternative process  
> exist that I have overlooked?   I would be happy to have this  
> dialogue by email, or we could chat on the phone if you prefer.  (My  
> office number is 301-975-3348.)  If you prefer a phone conversation,  
> we should probably schedule a time and avoid playing phone tag.  I am  
> currently available before 11:30 AM on Thursday the 30th, or anytime  
> on Friday the 31st.
> 
> There is one additional issue I would like to highlight in this  
> email. Russ Housley and I are good friends and our families get  
> together socially a couple of times each year.  We have co-authored a  
> number of IETF documents during the past decade, as well as the book  
> ^ÓPlanning For PKI^Ô.   While this was not a factor in my consideration  
> of tls-authz, I would not want you to think I was hiding our friendship!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tim Polk
> 
> 
>   
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000