> 3 apr 2015 kl. 21:16 skrev John Bradley <[email protected]>:
>
> Yes it is good, though reading that BCP may scare off implementers who will
> just ignore it.
Those people are gona ignore a bunch of other good advise too. Lets not chase
the rabbit down every hole.
>
> We may still want to give the current advice of >= tls 1.2 at the point of
> publication see BCP xx for additional considerations.
>
> John B.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I learned something new: we can reference a BCP (instead of an RFC) and
>> even if the RFC gets up-dated we will still have a stable reference.
>> (See Stephen's response to my question below).
>>
>> This is what we should do for our documents when we reference TLS in the
>> future. We would reference the yet-to-become BCP (currently UTA-TLS
>> document) and we essentially point to the recommended usage for TLS
>> (version, ciphersuite, everything).
>>
>> Isn't that great?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> On 02/04/15 19:09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> if I understand it correctly, you are saying if we reference a BCP #
>>> (instead of the RFC) then a revised RFC will get the same BCP #. I have
>>> never heard about that and if that's indeed true that would be cool. I
>>> might also have misunderstood your idea though.
>>
>> Yep, that's it. XML2RFC makes it hard but you can do it, worst
>> case via an RFC editor note
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
