I am opposed to publishing these two documents on the standards track. The licensing information in the patent disclosure #950 makes it clear to me that free software implementations of the specifications, suitable for inclusion into free operating systems like Debian or gNewSense, are not permitted or possible. I am concerned that the license terms in the #888 patent disclosure, applying to an I-D that were published as RFC 5091, is significantly different to the terms in the #950 patent disclosure. The terms in #950 claims to apply to RFC 5091 as well. So was RFC 5091 published as an RFC without public knowledge of the patent situation? Considering #950, that appears to be the case. According to the datatracker, the #950 disclosure does not replace the #888 disclosure. Is this an error in the datatracker or the last call announcement? I believe it is important to understand which of these patent disclosures apply to which documents. Given that there appears to be little community interest in this standard, and no free software implementation of it appears possible, I believe the technology is not ready for the standards track. Finally, both these documents have normative references to an Informational document, i.e. RFC 5091. According to section 3 of RFC 3967 aka BCP97, it seems to me like this needs to be pointed out explicitly in the IETF last call. /Simon The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a second last call for consideration of the following document > from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime): > > - 'Using the Boneh-Franklin and Boneh-Boyen identity-based Encryption > Algorithms with the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) ' > <draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > Technical issues raised in IETF Last Call and IESG evaluation have been > resolved. However, there have been substantive changes in the relevant > IPR disclosures statements since the review process was initiated. > Specifically, IPR disclosure statement #888, > (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/888/) > was replaced by PR disclosure statement #950, > (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/950/) > > This Last Call is intended to confirm continued community support in > light of the new IPR disclosure statement. Given the limited scope of > this Last Call, an abbreviated time period has been selected. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2008-10-27. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14992&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes: > This is a second last call for consideration of the following document > from the S/MIME Mail Security WG (smime): > > - 'Identity-based Encryption Architecture and Supporting Data > Structures ' > <draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > Technical issues raised in IETF Last Call and IESG evaluation have been > resolved. However, there have been substantive changes in the relevant > IPR disclosures statements since the review process was initiated. > Specifically, IPR disclosure statement #888, > (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/888/) > was replaced by PR disclosure statement #950, > (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/950/) > > This Last Call is intended to confirm continued community support in > light of the new IPR disclosure statement. Given the limited scope of > this Last Call, an abbreviated time period has been selected. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2008-10-27. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14987&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf