So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs, I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that the (elegant but not especially useful) crypto has been around for a while without finding any serious applications. Stephen. Tim Polk wrote: > Okay, I fat fingered this one. The S/MIME WG actually forwarded these > documents > with a recommendation that they be published as Informational. I > intended to respect > that consensus, but for one reason or another, they ended up in the > Tracker marked > for Standards track. > > It is clear that the WG got this one right, and I have changed the > intended status on > both documents to Informational. > > Thanks, > > Tim Polk > >> Harald wrote: >> >>> 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf