ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC 2195 (Was: what happened to newtrk?)

2006-09-07 18:53:53
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
 
Multiple interoperable implementations is not the
[only]
criteria for advancement; it is necessary but not
sufficient

2026 says "mature, useful, well-understood, stable."
A downref to SASLprep for a 2195bis DS would be odd,
in that case better publish 2195bis as PS.

The working group decided, due to a variety of
considerations, not to pursue publication of the
new document on the standards track, and instead
to ask that it be published as Informational.

That's the case "informational obsoletes PS".  How's
that supposed to work wrt BCP 46, ACAP, and ODMR ?

an argument that it should be assigned a status other
than that requested by the working group would be an
appropriate subject for a Last Call comment.

Yes.  That solves also Sam's problem, he can change his
vote when that will happen (and if it gets traction).

I think this is perhaps the crux of the matter.  I do
not believe that every old specification should be
advanced along the standards track simply because it
has been around a while and has multiple implementations.

+1 for the second statement.  The crux of the matter from
my POV is elsewhere, CRAM-MD5 is the best existing ESMTPA
mechanism in "real" MSAs I'm aware of.  For a definition
of "best" by "sending passwords in the clear isn't state
of the art".

Advancing a specification to Draft Standard sends the
signal that the IETF thinks the specification is a good
idea and that people should deploy it.

IMHO that's why CRAM-MD5 as DS would be good, maybe some
implementors would care to read the second statement in
its security considerations.  

You could add some MUSTard about this in a 2195bis draft.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf