My concern is that it is very rare for the IETF to define bits on the wire
in Informational RFCs. It is done for outside contributions, but not
usually for our own work.
Typically, if there is concern about standardization, we put something as
experimental.
If this is chosen for experimental due to IPR concerns, it would seem to
make sense to say something about that IPR situation in the document, to
explain why this is not standards track.
Otherwise, labeling informational / experimental actually does not help
readers much.
Yours,
Joel
At 10:24 AM 1/15/2006, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Joel M. Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This document is not quite ready for publication as an informational RFC.
>
> My concern is the status of the document. It is normal for Cipher
> Suites (algorithm definitions) to be informational RFCs. I have no
> argument with that.
> However, this document is not an algorithm definition.
> Rather, it is the definition of a set of TLS extensions and the format
> of the information in those TLS extensions.
> As such, it is a definition for bits on a wire, not for a
> computational algorithm.
> (I was curious to see how the algorithm would be described, having
> only seen exponential algorithms described in RFCs before. The
> algorithm is not described in this document.)
I'm not sure I understand wha the issue is here. In TLS, "Cipher Suite"
is a technical term that means that it's the definition for the bits
on the wire. Indeed, the actual algorithms are almost always
specified separately.
As for the issue of Informational vs. Standards track, this is something
that the TLS WG considered (under supervision of the AD) and concluded
that due to the confusing intellectual property state of ECC the document
was best proceeding as Informational. Why do you believe this to be
inappropriate?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
