On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Michael StJohns
I'm confused about this approval.
As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an
independent submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the document
is without context for "who does this" typical to an informational RFC.
Is that really typical? Check the MD5 algorithm in , I don't see
such boilerplates like "we at RSA security do hashing like that". I
think it is obvious that the authors of the document do that, or
recommend that. I pretty like the current format of informational
a) A document describing how the document authors would do this if they were
a standards organization?
b) A description of how their company does this in their products?
Is your question on what informational RFCs are?
c) A description of how another standards body (which one????) does this?
I'd suppose if this was the case it would be mentioned in the document
d) A back door attempt to form an international standard within the IETF
without using the traditional IETF working group mechanisms?
How can you know that? When somebody specifies his way of doing
things, is to inform and have interoperability. It might actually
happen that industry follows this approach and ends-up in a de-facto
standard. I see nothing wrong with that.
Ietf mailing list