BCP seems like a fine answer here, I'm not remembering why we would have swapped to ST from BCP.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > [ + Sandy, Alvaro ] > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner <s...@sobco.com> wrote: > >> that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability >> issue >> >> to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document) >> >> but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time so its not a >> new sin >> >> > This document has a long history -- it was originally a product of the > SIDR Working Group (as draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying), and only moved over to > SIDROPS recently, when SIDR closed down ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidr/about/). > > The document was originally a BCP ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying/09/), but was > changed to Standards Track in -10 ( > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-10.txt). > > > I have gone back through the agenda and minutes for IETF 92 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-92-sidr/), IETF 93 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-93-sidr/) and IETF 94 ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-94-sidr/). > I also went back and watched the video recordings from IETF 94: > https://youtu.be/fElkBi4UMEA?t=2397 and wasn't able to find any > discussion of why the change was made, but I *was* able to find some > changes made between -09 and -10 which seem to be the outcome of those > discussions. > > Authors / SIDROPS [0] & SIDR / chairs - can y'all remember why the track > change was made? > > Whatever the case, the IETF LC was done as Standards Track (a higher > level), and so it could always be "downgraded" to BCP / informational > during IESG Eval. > I personally think it "feels" like BCP, but I don't have full history / > inherited the document and don't want to be arbitrarily making changes. > > > W > [0]: SIDROPS and SIDR participant overlap is almost 100%. > > > > >> Scott >> >> > On Dec 26, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: >> > >> > mornin’ scott, >> > >> >> it is hard to see why it should be standards track or why it should >> >> be using RFC 2119 type terminology. >> > >> > these are two separate issues. >> > >> > alvaro and the chairs can adjudicate what flavor of ice cream it should >> > be. it my memory says it was a wg decision. i really do not care. >> > >> > as to 2119 language, i kinda feel it should remain. it is used >> > sparingly. but is crucial when used. e.g. >> > >> > all private keys MUST be protected when at rest in a secure >> > fashion. >> > >> > i suspect we would want to keep that strongly prescriptive; but it is >> > not a hill on which i am interested in dying. >> > >> > randy >> >> > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea > in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > pants. > ---maf > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
