The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes: > The IESG is considering approving this draft as an experimental track > RFC with knowledge of the IPR disclosure from Redphone Security. There are two other relevant IPR disclosures: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/808/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/806/ > The IESG solicits final comments on whether the IETF community has > consensus to publish draft-housley-tls-authz-extns as an experimental > standard given the IPR claimed. Comments can be sent to ietf@xxxxxxxx > or exceptionally to iesg@xxxxxxxxx Comments should be sent by > 2007-10-23. I was negative to publication during the earlier last calls, and I continue to be so. The primary reason remains the uncertainty of the IPR situation. It is not clear to me that I can implement this protocol freely without the burden of patent licenses. I'm speaking as a free software implementer of this document (see GnuTLS, <www.gnutls.org>). Further, as far as I could determine, there was a lack of consensus to support this document when it was discussed here and in the TLS WG earlier. I encourage the IESG to review those discussions. RFC 2026 says: To ensure that the non-standards track Experimental and Informational designations are not misused to circumvent the Internet Standards Process, the IESG and the RFC Editor have agreed that the RFC Editor will refer to the IESG any document submitted for Experimental or Informational publication which, in the opinion of the RFC Editor, may be related to work being done, or expected to be done, within the IETF community. The IESG shall review such a referred document within a reasonable period of time, and recommend either that it be published as originally submitted or referred to the IETF as a contribution to the Internet Standards Process. What was the IESG's recommendation after that review? Given that the initial last call was to put the document on the standards track, my impression would be that this last call request for the experimental track is indeed intended to circumvent the normal process. FYI, RFC 2026 continues: If (a) the IESG recommends that the document be brought within the IETF and progressed within the IETF context, but the author declines to do so, or (b) the IESG considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an Experimental or Informational RFC. In these cases, however, the IESG may insert appropriate "disclaimer" text into the RFC either in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo" section in order to make the circumstances of its publication clear to readers. Will the document have an IESG note? /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf