S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote:
> I removed the IETF mailing list (SAAG) from the Cc.
Good, so did my reply-to.
> At 09:12 AM 01-12-2024, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Over in saag@, there is a multi-week long debate about whether/how to
publish
>> algorithm allocations which are not the result of IETF consensus. Some
feel
>> that Specification Required is not strong enough, others feel it is too
>> strong, with the quasi-temporary nature of I-Ds intruding into the
debate.
> There was a discussion on another IETF mailing list in March 2024 about a
> similar topic:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FqmdAQY_C7jOGh_KV-HkC5MP7Xs/
Yes, I recall that thread, and I am sympathetic that IDs maybe aren't the
right tool. In most cases, the external document with the algorithm just
didn't know to ask IANA for IPsec/TLS/etc. IDs.
>> Gosh, it would be nice to get it all sorted before RFC10000. There
probably
>> isn't time to reach consensus though.
> Do you cite other RFCs when you propose a RFC? Are those other RFCs
> standards (please see RFC 7127)?
I'm not sure I understand your question.
> If you were to answer yes to both questions, you would be resolving the
> ambiguity. A side-effect of that solution if it is applied within that
> Stream is that it will have a negative impact on the output of IETF
Security
> Area. It will also cause more technical specifications to be published
> through the Independent Stream.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
