Hi Michael,
At 10:24 AM 01-12-2024, Michael Richardson wrote:
I think that we've always been uncomfortable internally with the
ambiguity, and I think this comes out loudly when we consider what it means
to publish an RFC (not a standards track one), about a cryptographic protocol
that some do not like.
Yes.
Externally, the ambiguity borders upon fraud, and it used to propel marketing
people into wanting informational RFCs that they can claim are RFCs, and this
Yes.
generally leads to more activity than we perhaps have resources to run.
(Does it still propel marketing people? I don't know.
There are two sentences from BCP 201:
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.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
