The distinction I think reflects the fact that that as good as we believe that these recommendations are at this time that they are subject to change. It was the opinion of the authors and the chairs that the opinion should be expressed without setting to high a bar for challenging it. This is also reflected in the removal of 2119 language in that this is advice on protocol requirements not requirements as well.
I realize that may sound like I'm trying to thread the needle, but it reflects the fact that the work done as a product of this document will not be done in opsec, or even in the ops area. Joel's iPad On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:57, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > At 14:56 20-08-10, The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from the Operational Security >> Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG (opsec) to consider the >> following document: >> - 'Cryptographic Authentication Algorithm Implementation Best Practices >> for Routing Protocols' >> <draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt> as an Informational >> RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > If it was the view of the opsec WG that this document represents best > practices, it could have chosen an intended status of BCP instead of > Informational. Quoting Section 8: > > "We expect that new revisions of this document will be issued > in the future to reflect current thinking on best practice > in this area." > > Does this document reflect best practice in this area? > > As a nit, there are two occurrences of the RFC2119 boilerplate. > > Regards, > -sm > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
