--On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:11 -0400 Tony Hansen <t...@att.com> wrote:
>> I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML >> from which extraction might have been easier, but also no >> response yet. And I had found several libraries, but not the >> RFC code. ... But the broader point is that if it's worth the >> IETF publishing the code as an RFC, it's worth making the >> code available straightforwardly. > > I've suggested on a couple occasions to the RFC Editor that, > when an RFC provides source code, they should allow > rfcXXXX.tar or rfcXXXX.tgz to be provided as well. > > There's only a handful of RFCs that do provide source code, > for whatever reason, so this should not be an onerous > additional feature. Folks, IANAL, but please be _very_ careful about the comment Joe made about the potential difference between publishing a paper or article that contains code and exporting the code itself or making it generally available for export. I have no reason to believe that this particular case is a problem given how widely the details of SHA-2 has been published but, if we want the RFC Editor to go into the code distribution business, we should be very sure that an attorney with the right specialties has looked at the situation and either cleared it generally or advised on what needs to be examined case by case. john
