Re: Standard Track dependencies on Informational RFCs

[RJ Atkinson]

At 09:52 31/08/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>I don't see any need to tweak the wording or the interpretation.
>
>  Brian

All,

        I agree with Brian and Harald and others.  There is no 
need to tweak things.  Nothing is broken.  There is no real 
process problem with having LDAP depend on MD5 even though MD5 
is described in an Informational RFC.

        We don't (and could not) have the power to change the
MD5 specification.  The IETF is not deep in the kinds of
crypto algorithm expertise that would be appropriate for
standardising a crypto algorithm (though for IETF to 
standardise the *application of a given crypto algorithm to 
some IETF protocol* seems emininently reasonable). 

        We have enough real technical issues to deal with in 
the IETF.  It isn't constructive to create new non-technical 
issues that we don't need to have, IMHO.

Ran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]