That certainly wasn't what I intended to say or said, so
I was surprised that Scott disagreed with my interpretation.
My recollection (since I was present at IESG telechats ex
officio at the time) is that the IESG explicitly decided
to accept normative references to MD5 and HMAC precisely
because their nature was that of mathematical algorithms
or theorems. I believe that is the common sense interpretation
of 2026 - whether the reference is an RFC or a textbook or
whatever is irrelevant.
I don't see any need to tweak the wording or the interpretation.
Brian
Scott Bradner wrote:
An informational RFC certainly meets these requirements.
I don't think we want to say that any info RFC qualifies
so how do we say just what we want to say and no more?
Scott
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Program Director, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
On assignment for IBM at http://www.iCAIR.org
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
Non-IBM email: brian(_at_)icair(_dot_)org