On 2/17/15 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/17/15 2:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/17/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/17/15 12:49 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
So my question is whether we should consider this document effectively
silent about the choice of cipher suites to be used when we
standardize a
new application protocol in the IETF, or an update to an existing
protocol.
If an application protocol wishes to follow the recommendations here,
someone needs to write a document that says so.
What about new protocols?
Right, I was thinking of existing protocols. For new protocols, I do
think it makes sense to reference this BCP.
But that is exactly what the PAWS document does, and in fact PAWS was
asked to do so by the security ADs, if I recall correctly.
pr
Something vaguely along the lines of what we did in RFC 6648 seems
sensible.
That is the impression that I get from the text right now, and
it doesn't quite match the way we've been using/citing the document in
some recent discussions of other drafts.
Do you have examples?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-20#section-7
Thanks. That reference seems fine to me.
Peter
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
