[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

[Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

After reading all mails posted so far, I realize that this draft was AD sponsored by Eric V. and so WG trace of it exists.

I would say that from the content, it should have been processed by 802.11 from the get go. 

But the authors mentality is usually  wherever I can get this move forward would be OK, especially considering how things move in 802.11 where there is no mechanism like AD sponsoring. 

So I am on the side of obsoleting RFC 8110.

Behcet

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 4:12 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rich,

 

Indeed, this is “unknown territory” for the IETF publication process.

 

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

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx