SM wrote:
At 05:37 20-10-2008, The IESG wrote:
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.
Disclosure statement #888 mentions draft-martin-ibcs-08. That I-D was
published as RFC 5091 in December 2007. Disclosure #950 submitted in
May 2008 mentions new licensing terms for RFC 5091. That disclosure
mentions that draft-ietf-smime-bfibecms-10 is on the Informational
Track whereas it is on the Standards Track.
As there seems to be only one implementation and very little public
discussion about the draft, I don't see why it should be on the
Standards Track.
With licensing terms like these, I would want to see a compelling
argument for why the community needs it standardized to put it on the
standards track.
Let it be informational.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf