Informational documents do not (usually) have normative statements. If they had normative language, they would be standards track document.
Thanks, Bret PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." > On Jul 23, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io> wrote: > > Before any technical or wording feedback, I am confused as to the nature of > this document. It does not seem to specify any protocol change or mechanism, > and it does not even focus on solutions to move the web further. > > Instead, it looks like a well edited blog post, presenting the perspective of > one segment of the industry. (The perspective seems to also lack consensus, > but I believe even that is secondary.) Note how as of > draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-05 there are no IANA considerations, no > security considerations, and no occurrences of any of the BCP 14 key words > (MUST, SHOULD, etc.). > > Is there precedent for publishing such a document as an RFC? > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
