Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:02:31PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I tried to convince Toerless to go with the MUST-/SHOULD+/SHOULD- >> terminology from IPsecME's RFC8247. >> >> It would be nice if SAAG lifted section 1.1 into a BCP14-like >> document, as I think that it has widespread applicability throughout >> documents that want to establish interoperable crypto.
> Is there are reason that RFC8247's {MUST,SHOULD}[-+] wouldn't be
> generally applicable beyond crypto? The -/+ thing is about pithily
> indicating likelihood of future downgrade/upgrade of the requirement/
> recommendation -- seems generally applicable to me.
> So.. just update RFC2119.
1) So, BCPs can point to multiple documents.
BCP14 actually is RFC2119 and RFC8174 now, so we can add a third document if
desired. That is, it's cheaper to not spin 2119.
2) I'm not claiming others won't use it, I just don't know if they will.
Crypto progresses... what other things do that in the same way?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
