>> One thing to keep in mind is that, if the document describing the >> currently deployed protocol is informational, we may have a tricky time >> making the extensions be standards track; it would (presumably) require >> a downref. > > it would; it is not logically a huge problem, merely wierd. > > I doubt very much that a push for better securing of an existing mature > protocol is the likely source of controversy there.
what is amusing is that some folk seem to be contemplating that the rfc of an old and widely distributed and used protocol should not be standard. randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
