Hello John
Thank you for your email: you raised two good points:
- A “chain” between RFC 8110 to the future IEEE 802.11 standard would be nice, if ever the IEEE 802.11 WG comes
with the actual standard for OWE before AUTH48, then we could easily update the I-D (as it does not change the technical content, I do not think that the whole process needs to be restarted). If IEEE comes after AUTH48 (probably), then Google/any search engine
should be enough as this I-D clearly points to the next SDO being IEEE.
- It may be worth indeed to publish a short I-D about the whole process we (the authors, the community, and I)
went through. Thanks for the suggestion.
Regards
-éric
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 29 August 2024 at 16:53
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: draft-wkumari-rfc8110-to-ieee@xxxxxxxx <draft-wkumari-rfc8110-to-ieee@xxxxxxxx>, trustees@xxxxxxxx <trustees@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [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
--On Tuesday, August 27, 2024 20:16 +0000 "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)"
<evyncke=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Replying to Stephen's email as he was the first to reply to the
> 4-week last call even if my reply is not on Stephen's supportive
> point ;-)
>
> As there is about 1 week left for this last call, and as some
> concerns were raised about the copyright, process, ... let me shed
> some lights on these topics as the sponsored AD for this IETF draft:
> - it is indeed an AD-sponsored IETF draft as RFC 8110 was (i.e.,
> not really fitting an existing WG) - with the authors, I have
> checked with the IESG, the IEEE (there is a liaison statement for
> this I-D), and of course the IETF trust
>
> The trust clearly stated about the I-D authors: "As authors they
> hold a shared copyright with the IETF Trust and they both have the
> ability to give the IEEE the needed rights" and "the IETF Trust
> will continue in perpetuity to hold its currently held shared
> rights with the authors on RFC8110 which means that RFC8110 will
> remain available to the IETF to use" (even if I have hard time to
> figure out why would we do so).
>
> Hope this clarifies completely the context for this unusual draft.
> We keep learning every day :-)
Éric,
I suggest there are two additional bits of context. The first of
these might justify an addition to the text; the second is a broader
and longer-term issue:
(1) At some point, IEEE will presumably produce a specification that
supercedes RFC 8110. Even though 8110 is Informational (this would
be even more important if it were Standards Track), it would be nice,
and a kindness to readers who might otherwise look at the wrong spec,
to formally obsolete 8110 and point to the replacement. A few
sentences in this document that points that out and explains what the
procedure would be to accomplish it would be very helpful. It would
otherwise be a loose end in the transfer process.
(2) As you point out, this is an unusual draft and an unusual,
although not unique, situation. As the most obvious example, once
W3C got going and then decided it wanted to be in the standards
business, responsibility and change control for HTML was handed off
to them. In a world in which more and more bodies seem to be
springing up with an interest in Internet protocols and formats,
perhaps it would be in the best interests of the Internet, as well as
the IETF, to have a more regular (i.e., less unusual) model for such
transfers of responsibility and how they, and their effects, are
documented. It might be good to treat this document as a learning
experience and start thinking about and documenting that broader
issue.
thanks,
john
I contin
|
