Subject: [TLS] Straw poll on draft-ietf-ecc-tls-* (Explanation)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:53:42 -0700

Folks,

We need to decide what to do with draft-ietf-tls-ecc-*.  I am therefore
calling for a straw poll. This message contains the background for the
straw poll. A message which follows contains the straw poll itself.
Please reply to *that message* to register your opinion.

The IPR situation for this draft isn't as clear as one might
like. Clearly, ECC is a patent minefield, and although the authors
assert that that minefield can be skirted, I'm not so sure. That does
not mean that the draft cannot go to Proposed. From RFC 3668:

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  But IETF working groups have the discretion 
   to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
   terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this  
   technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims  
   or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.

You can find a bunch of discussion on this topic in the thread
beginning at: http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg04301.html.

However, if we decide to advance the document as Informational, we must
also deal with the fact that S 4 defines extensions for curve and point
format negotiation. These are not essential to the protocol, however,
they may be useful. However, RFC 3546 (S 5) requires a Standards Action
to add a new extension. As I see it, this leaves us with three
reasonable options.

A. Advance draft-ietf-tls-ecc-* to Proposed Standard.
B. Advance draft-ietf-tls-ecc-* as Informational and remove
   the extensions.
C. Advance draft-ietf-tls-ecc-* as Informational with the
   extensions. Amend RFC 3456 to allow extensions without
   a Standards Action.

There is a fourth possibility: advance draft-ietf-tls-ecc-*
as Informational but create a separate draft that defines
only the extensions and advance that as Proposed. I think
this is a terrible idea from a WG perspective so I'm not
proposing it.

In the next message, I will call for a Straw Poll on this
topic. Please reply to *that message*, not this one.

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls