On 7/8/22 9:37 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Cullen, thanks very much for the review.
Just a quick comment on the PS vs BCP point:
Ditto.
On Friday, 8 July 2022 at 15:18, Cullen Jennings via Datatracker
<nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
[snip]
I don't think BCP is the appropriate status for this. I think it
should be PS. It explicitly says that is not trying to change
existent advice in existing RFC and theses will need other RFC to
"modernize" them.
RFC 8996 (which is BCP) has already done the heavy lifting for us.
We are not saying anything new here.
RFC 7525 (which of course 7525bis replaces) was published as a BCP back
in 2015 and is cited as such by 100+ RFCs:
https://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc7525.html
It seems strange for 7525bis to be published as Proposed Standard given
that 7525 was a BCP.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
