At 12:49 16/01/2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 1:43 PM -0500 1/15/08, John C Klensin wrote:
A different version of the
same thinking would suggest that any document needing these
extended keywords is not ready for standardization and should be
published as Experimental and left there until the community
makes up its collective mind.
It seems that you didn't read the whole document; RFC 4307 already
uses these terms. My experience with talking to IKEv2 implementers
(mostly OEMs at this point) is that they understood exactly what was
meant and were able to act accordingly when choosing what to put in
their implementations.
I think this addition of 2119 words is quite useful.
More and more of our work shifts from protocol definition to
protocol maintenance these extra keywords give working groups a way
to indicate to
developers/purchasers/planners/operators/regulators[1]
what the requirements for the protocol are going to be in the next few years.
More and more of the software we deal with is now released in multi
year cycles
followed by multi year deployment lag. Further more number of
protocols are embedded
in hardware devices that are frequently not updated during the
device's lifetime,
think the router in homes.
Question: the use of +/- in the context of "? NOT", is that going
to be written as "SHOULD+ NOT" or "SHOULD NOT+" ?
I have no feeling on the topic just think it should be documented.
I support this document and what it is trying to accomplish.
Olafur
PS: [1] Even though most of the people in the IETF are implementors or
lobbyists the documents get used by a large group that is absent
from the IETF and due to their roles would contribute nothing
even if they attended.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf