Hi Joel,
At 18:06 11-08-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
reasons, we will remove it ourselves. The document is being
publsiehd as informational, and the underlying documents were just
published as PS. We are NOT trying to move them
Out of curiosity, why is the implementation report being published as a RFC?
to Draft Standard. We need to actually build stuff with it
first. (But yes, the sentence claims that we meet the requirements
for DS, and we don't.)
Yes. Even if the (mandatory) SCTP-TML IPsec security framework was
implemented (see DISCUSS), the requirements for DS are still not met.
Is the following sentence from Section 3 going to be removed:
"The authors attest that the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML meet
the requirements for Draft Standard."
As a nit from RFC 4301:
'The spelling "IPsec" is preferred and used throughout this and all
related IPsec standards. All other capitalizations of IPsec (e.g.,
IPSEC, IPSec, ipsec) are deprecated. However, any capitalization of
the sequence of letters "IPsec" should be understood to refer to the
IPsec protocols.'
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf