On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:26:14 -0500 (EST) Richard Welty
<rwelty(_at_)averillpark(_dot_)net>
wrote:
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.
I heartily second that notion. Eric's draft makes a number of suggestions, of
which the content-tagging tokens are only a small part. It would be better if
the draft merely specified a *means* for those tokens to be incorporated, and
the tokens themselves were externalised.
Eric has already expressed the opinion that the tokens are the most likely
candidate for tweaking by the other Powers That Be, so it would be wise to
isolate them from the more technical aspects of the draft. This is also the
area most likely to be expanded upon by other lawmaking bodies or future
revisions to the law. If the Powers That Be are going to do any tweaking,
let's give them something obvious to tweak that won't result in any technical
brain damage.
Let the main draft specify "Solicitation:" (or whatever) as the standard means
of placing legally-required labels on a message, and define the labels
themselves in another document entirely. (You may want to define a *grammar*
for the labels in the main draft, but leave the actual vocabulary out of it.)
Regards,
TFBW
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg