Um Alan is right to pick up on the style - philosophical - and the security - lack of.
But do we want to change it all at this time? This is an Informational document describing the state of play as of some time past, perhaps not as far back as 1997 but not for 2016. It would require many changes to make it a 2016 Standards Track document but that is not what I see us doing except that is how I take Alan's comments. The analogy I have in mind is when SSL v3 was published, long after it had been superseded by anyone who took security seriously, but was needed as an RFC to refer to, although it would not pass muster because the security thereof was too weak. It would not have met the standards of the day but was published despite that. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> To: "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <OpsAWG- _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
