Subject: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:41:35 -0400

As of this morning all KEYPROV drafts are in state RFC-Ed Queue

draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat/>
-11 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat>
2010-08-09  RFC Ed
Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat>
draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc/>
-09 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc>ipr<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc>
2010-08-02  RFC Ed
Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc>
draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/keyprov/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp/>
-14 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp>ipr<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_search&document_search=draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp>
2010-09-07  RFC Ed
Queue<http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp>
First, congratulations and thanks for all the hard work.

Could authors ensure that they respond to questions from the RFC editor so
that we can get into AUTH48 as soon as possible and publish the RFCs before
Beijing.

This completes our charter items and leads to the question of next steps. In
particular do we want to progress from PROPOSED standard to whatever comes
next?

>From my point of view, this actually depends on whether there is a change
from a three step process to two. At the moment a lot of IETF specs languish
at PROPOSED and there is safety in numbers. If there is a move to a two step
process I think it more likely that completing the IETF process and being
promoted to STANDARD will become an expectation.

Assuming the criteria for progress will remain the same as those for DRAFT
status, the main things we will need to do are (1) recharter and (2)
demonstrate that we have 2 interoperable implementations for each
specification feature.

Rechartering will of course be subject to the approval of the ADs.

What do people in the group think about this?

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:53:14 +0300

Hi Phillip, 

this is indeed great news!

There is one document on PSKC algorithm profiles that would need to get finished. Here is the current version: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm-profiles/

In  a chat with Anders we were also wondering whether a JSON encoding of PSKC would be useful. This would allow us easier integration with JavaScript into the browser. 

The first document does not necessarily need to go through a working group; it could also be an AD sponsored document or directly sent to the RFC Editor. The second document obviously does not yet exist. 

Regarding interoperability: I am actually always in favor of doing interoperability testing (in a lightweight fashion -- potentially over the Internet with some test cases we go through). It would be interesting to know where we are with regard to running code.

Ciao
Hannes

On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> draft-ietf-keyprov-symmetrickeyformat	-11			2010-08-09  	RFC Ed Queue
> draft-ietf-keyprov-pskc	-09	ipr		2010-08-02  	RFC Ed Queue
> draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp	-14	ipr		2010-09-07  	RFC Ed Queue
> 
> Could authors ensure that they respond to questions from the RFC editor so that we can get into AUTH48 as soon as possible and publish the RFCs before Beijing.
> 
> 
> This completes our charter items and leads to the question of next steps. In particular do we want to progress from PROPOSED standard to whatever comes next?
> 
> From my point of view, this actually depends on whether there is a change from a three step process to two. At the moment a lot of IETF specs languish at PROPOSED and there is safety in numbers. If there is a move to a two step process I think it more likely that completing the IETF process and being promoted to STANDARD will become an expectation.
> 
> 
> Assuming the criteria for progress will remain the same as those for DRAFT status, the main things we will need to do are (1) recharter and (2) demonstrate that we have 2 interoperable implementations for each specification feature.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> KEYPROV mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/keyprov

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:57:18 -0400

There is also the I-D for a Web Service specification...
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doherty-keyprov-ct-kip-ws/

I proposed this to the group awhile back and we said we'd defer any
go/no-go decision on this until DSKPP spec advanced.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:53 AM
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; KEYPROV
Subject: Re: [KEYPROV] Status and Next Steps

Hi Phillip, 

There is one document on PSKC algorithm profiles that would need to get
finished. Here is the current version: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoyer-keyprov-pskc-algorithm-prof
iles/

In  a chat with Anders we were also wondering whether a JSON encoding of
PSKC would be useful. This would allow us easier integration with
JavaScript into the browser. 

The first document does not necessarily need to go through a working
group; it could also be an AD sponsored document or directly sent to the
RFC Editor. The second document obviously does not yet exist. 

Regarding interoperability: I am actually always in favor of doing
interoperability testing (in a lightweight fashion -- potentially over
the Internet with some test cases we go through). It would be
interesting to know where we are with regard to running code.

Ciao
Hannes

On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Could authors ensure that they respond to questions from the RFC
editor so that we can get into AUTH48 as soon as possible and publish
the RFCs before Beijing.
> 
> 
> This completes our charter items and leads to the question of next
steps. In particular do we want to progress from PROPOSED standard to
whatever comes next?
> 
> From my point of view, this actually depends on whether there is a
change from a three step process to two. At the moment a lot of IETF
specs languish at PROPOSED and there is safety in numbers. If there is a
move to a two step process I think it more likely that completing the
IETF process and being promoted to STANDARD will become an expectation.
> 
> 
> Assuming the criteria for progress will remain the same as those for
DRAFT status, the main things we will need to do are (1) recharter and
(2) demonstrate that we have 2 interoperable implementations for each
specification feature.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:24:04 -0400

The PSKC algorithm profiles is currently submitted as an individual
submission which is why it is not showing up in the tracker as a keyprov
item.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> PSKC would be useful. This would allow us easier integration with JavaScript
> into the browser.
>
> The first document does not necessarily need to go through a working group;
> it could also be an AD sponsored document or directly sent to the RFC
> Editor. The second document obviously does not yet exist.
>
> interoperability testing (in a lightweight fashion -- potentially over the
> Internet with some test cases we go through). It would be interesting to
> know where we are with regard to running code.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
> > Could authors ensure that they respond to questions from the RFC editor
> so that we can get into AUTH48 as soon as possible and publish the RFCs
> before Beijing.
> >
> >
> > This completes our charter items and leads to the question of next steps.
> In particular do we want to progress from PROPOSED standard to whatever
> comes next?
> >
> DRAFT status, the main things we will need to do are (1) recharter and (2)