Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] CONSENSUS CALL: STARTTLS to informational

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:49:24 -0600

Since the meeting, I have seen a number of comments on Jabber and on this 
mailing list to the effect that we should publish STARTTLS immediately as 
an informational document.  Some of those comments also suggested that we 
should publish FAST as informational when it is ready, and upgrade one or 
both documents when necessary/appropriate.

I believe there is a reasonably strong consensus to publish STARTTLS as an 
informational document, and I would like to verify that such a consensus 
actually exists.  To that end, I am beginning a consensus call on the 
question of the intended status of STARTTLS.  This call will run until 
23:59 EST on Monday, Dec 1, 2008, which is slightly over a week from now. 
Please respond by then, or let me know if there is some reason you need 
more time.

If this call shows that there is indeed a consensus, and provided no 
substantive issues have been raised that require a new version of the 
document, I will then immediately begin a WGLC on the STARTTLS document. 
If new substantive issues are raised, we will of course wait until they 
have been addressed.  I would suggest that anyone who believes there are or 
may be outstanding issues with this document review tt and bring them up 
soon, so that they can be resolved before the last call.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:10:03 +0100

Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

> question of the intended status of STARTTLS.

I can live with informational, but it isn't my preference, so I'm +-0.
I would prefer to publish krb5starttls on the standards track.

It would be useful if others also indicate whether they would support
standards track, to understand if there may actually be consensus to
publish on the standards track.  The WG is chartered with producing a
document securing KDC communication with TLS, after all.

/Simon

---

From: "Henry B. Hotz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:17:34 -0800

Strongly in favor of publishing somehow.

Neutral as to info vice stds track.  If there's anything like consensus 
for standards track then go for it, otherwise let's just publish as info 
and move on.

-- 
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email-masked], or [email-masked]

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:38:51 -0600

> both documents when necessary/appropriate.

I'm in the latter category.  Both as FYI for now, one or both as
Proposed Standard once we see deployment.

Nico

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:31:59 +0100

> Proposed Standard once we see deployment.

+1

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:27:44 -0500

+1