Hi Toreless,
At 12:51 AM 11-08-2024, Toerless Eckert wrote:
1. S: How are the original RFC8110 authors relevant when the RFC and the new
draft are IETF AD sponsored instead of ISE track ?
I'll disclose that I am not a legal expert.
From what I understood, it has something to do the rights which an
author provides to the IETF. There is a discussion of that topic in BCP 78.
John Levine wrote that the authors of the draft and RFC 8110 are the
same persons:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/hq_inaOfkqbzVaNiOWHdAIOxlxs/
That matches my reading of the two documents. Now, if the authors
were different, there could be other questions which come into
play. However, that's not the case here.
The draft is AD-sponsored:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/VyVxlbdkZsn-qqcm6pYlA7twnHc/
As it is an IETF thing, I don't have to say anything about the ISE track. :-)
2. Of course, if further progress on this technology is something the IETF
does not care about, it does make sense to make it as easy as possible for
IEEE do this work. I am not sure whether the draft achieves this because
of 1. I don't understand from the draft what exactly the IETF promises to
change in its behavior, or what legally changes - if anything. E.g.: is this
a promise to never ever touch anything related to rfc8110 ?? Has the IETF
ever made such a promise, e.g.: prior examples ?
The following file is a patch which was sent to an open source
project:
https://www.freebsd.org/security/patches/SA-19%3A03/wpa-12.patch My
reading of the patch is that someone implemented RFC 8110. If I am
not mistaken, it has something to do with "Enhanced Open" security.
Tom Petch pointed to RFC 4663:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/NZ2ijGqeOoJWXMjxoAPd0qMMTrY/
It's an example of what was done before. There may be some
differences between the that example and the matter on hand. I would
have to give more thought, and maybe seek external expertise, to
figure all that out.
Someone might wish to ask for some thing about RFC 8110. It would
help if there was a pointer so that the person can find out which
"standards" organization maintains the specification. "Maintains"
means "Hold for document update" in IETF parlance.
The IETF would be unable to make promises unless the "I" is a
person. As a side comment, I cannot make promises on behalf of the
IETF. It seems like there is a volunteer willing to take
responsibility for the "I":
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/VyVxlbdkZsn-qqcm6pYlA7twnHc/
3. I very much hope that the IEEE provides an equal or better opportunity
for those interestd to work on updates as IETF would. I am not sure this is
the case. Seems as if there is at least a potentially significant
membership fee associated with working in IEEE SA.
Please see https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/file41.pdf
4. What happens if this draft does not become RFC ?
The contact persons listed at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1929/ would have to come up an
explanation.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
