On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:45:42 -0800 (PST) Carl Malamud
<carl(_at_)media(_dot_)org> wrote:
I agree that the labels could share the same registry. But, one of the
things I tried to do in my draft is let somebody else worry about
what the labels are and how they are defined. It got bootstrapped
with three easy ones, but I'd sure like the FTC or somebody else
to worry about what these tokens really mean and who is
supposed to use them. So, I'm not sure I'm comfortable
with language in an i-d or rfc like "Commercial electronic mail
MUST be labeled". Seems like that belongs in a law, not
a standard.
if i might suggest, normally in the crypto groups, algorithms and their
labeling are generally separated out from the protocols. this allowed,
for example, AES to easily be added to the IPSec and SSH suites
w/o messing with the existing drafts. i would submit that labeling
should be a separate draft which can subsequently be supplemented
or superceeded.
having suggested it, i suppose i should also state that i'm willing
to pull this part out of the existing drafts to stand on its own.
richard
--
Richard Welty
rwelty(_at_)averillpark(_dot_)net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg