On 2007-07-09 18:45, Trevor Perrin wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I note that intended status is Informational but there is a list of
Normative
references. That's OK, but note that the key reference [SRP-6] is in
fact Informative and is not even directly available at the given URL. I'm
not sure this is OK for independent implementors (and it would clearly
not be OK as Proposed Standard).
Hi Brian, all,
All the details from the SRP-6 paper needed to implement this draft are
included in the draft. That's why we decided that making the reference
informational was OK.
OK, that wasn't clear to someone without access to [SRP-6] so if
you revise the draft for any reason, I suggest stating that clearly
the first place you refer to [SRP-6].
Thanks
Brian
Since the SRP-6 paper was not published elsewhere, the P1363.2
submission was the most stable way to reference it. Thus we followed
the example of RFC 3447, reference 5, for referring to a P1363
submission, and giving the URL of P1363.
Eventually, IEEE P1363.2 should issue as an IEEE standard that includes
SRP-6. If the TLS/SRP document is revisited later (perhaps for a move
from informational -> standards track), we could change the reference to
IEEE Std P1363.2 for SRP-6.
But for now, I think this is the best we can do.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
