IETF conflict review for draft-santesson-svt
conflict-review-santesson-svt-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: Eliot Lear ,
    draft-santesson-svt@ietf.org,
    rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
Cc: IETF-Announce ,
    The IESG ,
    iana@iana.org
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-santesson-svt-08

The IESG has completed a review of draft-santesson-svt-08 consistent with
RFC5742.

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Signature Validation Token'
as an Informational RFC.

The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and
IETF work.

The IESG would also like the Independent Submissions Editor to review the
comments in the datatracker related to this document and determine whether or
not they merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both
the ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-santesson-svt/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-santesson-svt/

The process for such documents is described at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]
Old DISCUSS was addressed - the document already went through there but there was no interest.

I am a bit worried about this document, as it basically short-circuits the presumed certificate validation process. While one could think of it as a "secure cache" with some cache management, I'm a bit nervous that passing tokens around can lead to reduced or bypassed certificate validation.

Could this not fit into lamps for WG discussion?

[Ballot discuss]
I am a bit worried about this document, as it basically short-circuits the presumed certificate validation process. While one could think of it as a "secure cache" with some cache management, I'm a bit nervous that passing tokens around can lead to reduced or bypassed certificate validation.

Could this not fit into lamps for WG discussion?

[Ballot comment]
==[ For the IESG
* This document went to SecDispatch at IETF 107.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/minutes-107-secdispatch-00.  The dispatch result was "Need to build more community."

* This document returned to SecDispatch at IETF 109.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-secdispatch-00.  The dispatch result was to create a new mailing list to grow a community of interest.

* In November 2020 the "svt" mailing list was created (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/svt/) but energy to create a body of work around the SVT concept was not generated.