The comment period has now passed. There appears to be no support to continue work on draft-ietf-tls-pwd in the TLS WG. The chairs will leave the draft in the “parked” status. Note that the authors are free to attempt to progress the draft through other channels, but are requested to progress the draft as an individual submission (i.e., resubmit the draft as draft-nomdeplume-catchytitlehere before approaching an AD or the ISE). The chairs will ensure the “replaces” metadata information is attached to the resubmitted draft to ensure the draft’s history is not lost.
J&S > On Jun 27, 2016, at 10:35, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > All, > > draft-ietf-tls-pwd [0] has been parked [1] by the WG chairs since late 2013. > It was parked by the WG chairs because there was no consensus to move the > document forward during WGLC [2][3]. However, circumstances have changed > namely the publication of Dragonfly Key Exchange RFC [4] and the proposed > changes to the IANA registration rules for algorithm code points. In light > of these two developments, the chairs want to revisit this decision and would > like to know before 12 July if the WG wants to progress draft-ietf-pwd as a > WG item to obtain algorithm code points under the new rules [5]. > > Note that if the WG decides not to progress the draft the author will be free > to pursue other publication paths, e.g., through the AD or the ISE. > > Thanks, > > J&S > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-pwd/ > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6174/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aYIXwO8l4K8XdvUoW9ysHT8WzA0 > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Fep2-E7xQX7OQKzfxOoFInVFtm4 > [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7664/ > [5] Obviously, the draft needs to be revised in light of [3]. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
