At 10:06 AM -0400 3/29/07, Sam Hartman wrote: >Folks, we didn't get a lot of support expressed in the second last >call. If I were making a consensus call today I'd say we do not have >consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as a proposed >standard given the IPR claims against it. > >However Russ pointed out to me that it may be that people thought this >was a typical last call where silence meant agreement. I think even >under that interpretation things look grim: silence means agreement >with the prevailing expressed opinion. > > >But to make absolutely sure I propose to conduct a last call to >confirm that we don't have consensus to publish as a proposed >standard. Does this seem like the right approach to folks? I plan to >take some next step within the next couple of days based on input. > >I'm sorry this issue is taking up so much of the community's time. I thought Eric Rescorla and Pasi Eronen had suggested that this document be evaluated by the TLS working group and the IPR terms evaluated there. I have that suggestion in an email thread on the main IETF list, started by Eric and with the thread title "Last Call Comments on draft-housley-tls-authz-07". I personally believe that would be a sensible way forward, as it seems likely that the working group would be better able to evaluate the impact of the IPR claims (both RedPhone's and IBM's) than the main IETF list. Was there a problem that came up with that way forward in Prauge? regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf