Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote: > BCP is not limited to network administration. They are also applicable > to implementers. RFCs 6881 and 7696 are examples of BCPs aimed at > implementers.
So I think these are poor examples, and actually demonstrates why minimal
should be standards track.
RFC7696:
Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm Agility
and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms
I read this as guidelines to people writing IETF protocol specifications.
For the people writing code or planning the implementation the protocol is
either algorithm agile or not.
RFC6881:
Best Current Practice for Communications Services in
Support of Emergency Calling
is definitely more implementer focused, in that a product manager needs to
take this into account, and I can see "RFC6881 compliance" showing up in an
RFP. I don't think our BCPs should show up be fundamental content in RFP.
(An person informed about both NAFTA/TPP/CETA and IETF process would conclude
our BCPs are not performance specifications under the agreement. Fortunately
for the IETF, there are few people who know both. I know it only as the
hammer we use to deal with vendor proprietary protocols in government
procurement)
Minimal is definitely more like 6881 than 7696.
BUT, I think it (rfc6881) should have been published as standards track myself!
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
