[Top] [All Lists]

RE: The RC2 debate

1997-04-24 23:22:06
On Wednesday, April 23, 1997 11:07 AM, Ned Freed
[SMTP:Ned(_dot_)Freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com] wrote:
Keith, I don't mean to be unfriendly, but this is an absolute showstopper as
far as I'm concerned. So let me be blunt. I believe that progressing a
with a RC2 reference in it is a formal violation of IETF rules as long the
status claimed by RSA doesn't change. And this is one rule I happen to
must be enforced for the good of the IETF. I also believe I have backed this
with language from the applicable procedures in force today and that your
reading of the procedures is entirely specious.

I don't understand -- the mere *mention* of RC2 in any IETF standard
document will cause you to be all cranky?

Yes. My position is that RC2 cannot even be an optional part of the
specification unless it is released from trade secret restrictions. As a trade
secret the most it can be is an informational part of the specification, and
preferably in a separate, informational document.

I believe this is what RFC2026 requires. (I also understand Keith's argument on
this point -- I just happen to believe his analysis is totally incorrect.)

I suppose what you mean is
that if RC2 is a MUST then you will be all cranky.  I think this is an
important distinction, so I'd like to get clarification on it.

Nope, that is not what I mean.


P.S. I am also somewhat offended by your dismissive term "cranky" here. There
are sound technical and procedural reasons for the position I've taken here.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>