Hi Michael, On 12/1/15 9:21 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > 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.
I agree that my choice of wording and referencing 7696 wasn't the best. In essence, I was pointing out that there are BCPs that are not directed at operational aspects. > > 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! Just so everyone is on the same page... BCPs are on equal footing with standards track documents. The only real difference is that an ST document can be advanced from PS to IS. And that was one of my questions. Do people expect that this draft would have an advancement path from PS to IS in the future? Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
