Andrew McDonald andrew at mcdonald.org.uk
Thu Dec 3 21:22:23 CET 2009

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 08:15:46AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > On 12/01/2009 04:31 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> >>  Due to some procedural issues [0] it is not possible to publish
> >> RFC5081bis as independent submission. My last draft it at [1]. I have
> >> tried to publish it as AD-sponsored but the area director refuses to
> >> publish it as informational. I see no reason to publish it again as
> >> experimental, thus I give up. Is any of you interested in adopting this
> >> document?

Do you know why the original RFC5081 was published as experimental
rather than standards track?

Are there independent interoperating implementations that could be used
as an indication that "RFC5081 had some issues, but is basically good
enough for standards track"? Otherwise reissue at experimental might be
the most appropriate route.

> > I don't know enough about the process in general or the history of this
> > specific draft to be able to push it forward, though i'm interested in
> > seeing it formalized.  Presumably, the way around the procedural issues
> > is to get the TLS WG to approve it, no?
> Yes. The way to achieve that is to have people support it from the WG.

I didn't spot any mails that indicated that you've tried to initiate
any discussion on the TLS WG - that would be the obvious starting
point - "Here's a draft. It fixes these flaws in RFC5081. Any support
for taking up as a wg draft to update RFC5081?"

I've only the skimmed the draft - mainly the "Changes from RFC5081"
section. The immediately obvious concern is the "major and
incompatible" changes statement (though what happens if an RFC5081bis
endpoint tries to talk to an RFC5081 endpoint is not entirely clear to
me). Is there a way to make it compatible? (Even if it involves
defining a new certificate type?)

> > Actually, it looks like 5081 was not a TLS WG RFC -- it shows up as a
> > "Network Working Group" RFC here, anyway:
> No it is a TLS WG. I don't know the network working group header but it
> seems all TLS WG documents have it. Check:
> http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/tls-charter.html
> for the TLS WG documents.

"Network Working Group" is a historical thing - it was what the IETF
was before it became the IETF.

Andrew McDonald
Contact details: admcd.tel

More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list