At Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:34:19 -0800,
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> I think if the IESG chooses not to publish draft-housley-tls-authz
> now, the authors should immediately take it RFC Editor for publication
> and the IESG should not object to its timely publication. In this
> case, the authors should not be asked to wait on a WG effort as they
> have done well, I think, to try to publish this through the IETF. It
> would be disingenuous for us to now delay independent publication of
> this I-D via the RFC Editor.
This avenue is specifically precluded by RFC 5246: draft-housley-tls-authz
contains new ExtensionType code points, and they can only be
assigned by IETF Consensus:
- TLS ExtensionType Registry: Future values are allocated via IETF
Consensus [RFC2434]. IANA has updated this registry to include
the signature_algorithms extension and its corresponding value
(see Section 7.4.1.4).
Obviously, the authors can publish a document without code point
assignments, but it's hard to see what the value of that is.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf