On 10/17/14, 7:14 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 07:53:37PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
It seems to me that, by definition, the future cannot be helpfully discussed
in a Best *Current* Practice document. The most we can do is point to some
possible directions of future trends that might have an impact on the scope
and applicability of the BCP. However, my preference would be to let the
future take care of itself: I'm sure that folks will see fit to update the
BCP as threats and technologies change over the next few years. Better to
get recommendations out quickly and make it easy for people to ship
documents that update or obsolete this one.
I agree, which is I was somewhat surprised by the "speculative" text
about potential future revocation approaches. The DANE (avoiding
revocation entirely) approach is at least something one can do now,
on a small scale since most domains are unsigned. The text talks
about things which can't be practiced at all as yet.
Then I suggest that we rip out most of the future-oriented statements.
Viktor, which ones did you find objectionable?
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
