At 01:21 07/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I agree with almost everything that Brian Rosen says in his note - the
only thing that made me wonder, after Steve Bellovin talked at the IAB
plenary about a crypto protocol that got blown twice in a specification
that had only three message (message-equivalents? sorry if I
misunderstood), that the definition of "complexity is low" may be a lot
harder than we would have thought intuitively!
Spencer
Clearly, there are specifications where the complexity is low, and we have
enough experience with the subject that we can be reasonably sure it works
without running code.
Full agreement with both. With the additional remarks that "low complexity"
may result from a lack of proper consideration of the charter (what should
always be the first task of a WG) or from a lack of competence to see that
complexity; and that great care should be given that the description of
never ran code solutions are not labelled "BCP" just because their Draft
claims to replace an RFC with a BCP number.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf