While we could change the policies, historically there have been very
good reasons why "specification required" does not have "openly
available" as a requirement. Among other things, we generally don't
tell other SDOs how to do business (and expect them not to tell us how
to do our business.) But we sometimes need to cite their documents.
While many of them have gotten more open / accessible, it is by no means
uniform. And there would be all sorts of edge cases.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/5/2024 6:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote:
>> 1. Mandatory-to-implement algorithms MUST have a stable public
>> specification and public documentation that has been well studied,
>> giving rise to significant confidence.
> 2. The IETF has always had a preference for unencumbered algorithms.
> The IETF Community would have to agree on what the first sentence means.
In
> my opinion, the second sentence shouldn't be too much of a problem.
However,
> it would be better not to lose sight of it or else it's gong to be
> half-a-solution.
The recently published rfc9563 references SM2, which is an ITU-T for fee
document, with an english translation which does seem to not load for me.
http://www.gmbz.org.cn/upload/2024-11-18/1731899501687024253.pdf
I would prefer that "Specification Required" included the words "available",
and for which the principles of open-stand.org applied.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
