ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Updating the rules?

2007-07-08 17:00:10
"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:

    >> Also from the draft: "At least for the strong security
    >> requirement of BCP 61 [RFC3365], the Security Area, with the
    >> support of the IESG, has insisted that all specifications
    >> include at least one mandatory-to-implement strong security
    >> mechanism to guarantee universal interoperability."
    >> 
    >> I do not think this is a factual statement, at least when it
    >> comes to HTTP, which is where my interest lies.
    Keith> note that it is not necessary to have at least one
    Keith> mandatory-to-implement strong security mechanism to
    Keith> guarantee interoperability.  consider, for example, a
    Keith> client-server protocol for which conforming servers are
    Keith> required to implement _two_ strong security methods and for
    Keith> which clients are required to implement _at least one_ of
    Keith> those two methods.  this would ensure interoperability even
    Keith> though there were no single mandatory-to-implement for
    Keith> clients.

The IESG has in fact noted that and brought it up as an option in some
cases.


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

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