On 24/07/2019 02:55, Bret Jordan wrote: > As a professional organization and part of due diligence, we need to try > and understand the risks and ramifications on the deployments of our > solutions. This means, understanding exactly how the market uses and > needs to use the solutions we create. When we remove or change some > technology, we should try hard to provide a work around. If a work > around is not possible, we need to cleanly document how these changes > are going to impact the market so it can prepare. This is the > responsible and prudent thing to do in a professional organization like > the IETF. >
The IETF is for development of Internet Standards. If you want to publish your (subjective) analysis of how a particular standard is going to impact your market segment, there are any number of better venues: trade magazines, industry associations, your company website, etc. > The draft that Nancy and others have worked on is a great start to > documenting how these new solutions are going to impact organizational > networks. Regardless of whether you like the use-cases or regulations > that some organizations have, they are valid and our new solutions are > going to impact them. This isn't a question of quality. The IETF simply doesn't publish documents of this nature (to my knowledge). > 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." Best, Dennis >> On Jul 23, 2019, at 7:44 PM, Dennis Jackson >> <dennis.jack...@cs.ox.ac.uk <mailto:dennis.jack...@cs.ox.ac.uk>> wrote: >> >> RFC 791 is nearly 40 years old. >> RFC 4074 lists 5 forms of deviations from RFC 1034 and explains >> the correct behavior. >> RFC 7021 describes a series of objective tests of RFC 6333 and >> the results. >> >> >> The above RFCs describe objective test results and how they >> relate to earlier RFCs. In contrast, this document offers a >> speculative and subjective discussion of possible future impact. >> >> >> I do not believe there is any precedent supporting publication. >> >> >> Best, >> Dennis > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
