From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 08 August 2024 09:11
Rich,
Indeed, this is “unknown territory” for the IETF publication process.
<tp>
I think not. Look for example at RFC4663, inter alia, the first example that comes to my mind.
The issues as I recall are that the authors of work in the IETF do not grant the rights to the IETF to then farm the work out to a third party, no matter the standing of the third party.
It is a question of tracking down the rights holders who granted rights to the IETF to see if they are willing to grant the rights required by IEEE 802.11 to the IEEE 802.11 whatever rights they may be; I would be amazed if the rights required by the IEEE are a good match to those of the IETF. (There are plenty of examples of work coming into the IETF with restrictive rights attached which then require special treatment in the IETF).
Tom Petch
As the sponsoring AD and after discussion with the authors and some other IESG members, it seems that:
- obsoleting RFC 8110 is not correct as the protocol is unchanged (as noted by Peter Yee)
- an erratum cannot be filed as there is nothing changed in the IETF consensus when RFC 8110 was published
I.e., an update tag seems the most suitable way to ‘link’ RFC 8110 to this I-D, which contains a link to IEEE 801.11 WG. There is already an IEEE Liaison Statement about this I-D and I intend to formally reply to the IEEE LS once this RFC is published.
Obviously, we are all open for discussion on this unusual procedure.
Regards,
-éric
From: Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 23:25
To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-wkumari-rfc8110-to-ieee@xxxxxxxx <draft-wkumari-rfc8110-to-ieee@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: Last Call: <draft-wkumari-rfc8110-to-ieee-02.txt> (Transferring Opportunistic Wireless Encryption to the IEEE 802.11 Working Group) to Informational RFC
Rich,
That's an interesting question. The usual case is that a new IETF specification obsoletes an old one. Can a non-IETF specification obsolete an IETF specification? It's fairly certain that IEEE 802.11-2024 will not contain a statement saying, "Obsoletes RFC 8110". I don't think an erratum quite covers this case. What would it's disposition be? "Hold for document update"? ;-)
At the current time, I'm not aware that IEEE 802.11-2024 will change OWE, so it may be a straight transfer of the text or something close to it. Nothing is really obsoleted then in RFC 8110. This is more about transferring the future evolution of and responsibility for the text of RFC 8110 to IEEE.
-Peter
On 8/7/24, 12:52 PM, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> the simple need of allowing IEEE 802.11 to subsume RFC 8110.
You mean that 8110 would be obsoleted by the IEEE doc? Do we mark that somehow in the errata or something?
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
