Maybe a technical document is the wrong way to address this. https://www.etsi.org/news-events/news/1358-2018-11-press-etsi-releases-standards-for-enterprise-security-and-data-centre-management Perhaps a countering press release is needed, reminding everyone of the IETF's stances on security and privacy. (I don't see what could be leveraged here for copyright or brand protection; internet drafts are copyrighted to the IETF Trust, but asserting that copyright and claiming that republishing draft-green violates it could have a chilling effect on future contributions.) L. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________ From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 10:10 Subject: "Re: [IAB] IAB report to the community for IETF 103 On 19/11/2018 22:56, Michael Richardson wrote: > And we should (should we?) write a document saying that they MUST NOT do so. If implementers consider such a document useful then we should do it. The potential benefit I guess could be that when someone says "hey, let's support ETSI's-broken-TLS" an implementer could say "please read RFC<foo>" for why we don't." I'm not sure if such a document would be useful as I don't have to face such issues. (If TLS implementers said it were, I'd be happy to help with one.) > Or as Ben just asked, do a liason. That's separately needed (and I'm told happening). There's copyright and good neighbour issues there that the IETF and ETSI could do with sorting out, over and above the specifics of the ETSI TC that rubber-stamped the draft-green thing that had been explicitly rejected in the IETF. S.
