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 > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 3:47 PM Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io> > <mailto: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? > > > > I was going to say RFC 691 but no, it recommends changes to the protocol > (as well as being quite amusing). RFC 4074 comes close describing bad > behavior without an explicit plea to stop doing it, but has a security > considerations section. RFC 7021 describes the impact of a particular > networking technique on applications. > > So there is precedent. > > Sincerely, > Watson
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
