The distinction I think reflects the fact that that as good as we believe that
these recommendations are at this time that they are subject to change. It was
the opinion of the authors and the chairs that the opinion should be expressed
without setting to high a bar for challenging it. This is also reflected in the
removal of 2119 language in that this is advice on protocol requirements not
requirements as well.
I realize that may sound like I'm trying to thread the needle, but it reflects
the fact that the work done as a product of this document will not be done in
opsec, or even in the ops area.
Joel's iPad
On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:57, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 14:56 20-08-10, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Operational Security
Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure WG (opsec) to consider the
following document:
- 'Cryptographic Authentication Algorithm Implementation Best Practices
for Routing Protocols'
<draft-ietf-opsec-igp-crypto-requirements-00.txt> as an Informational
RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
If it was the view of the opsec WG that this document represents best
practices, it could have chosen an intended status of BCP instead of
Informational. Quoting Section 8:
"We expect that new revisions of this document will be issued
in the future to reflect current thinking on best practice
in this area."
Does this document reflect best practice in this area?
As a nit, there are two occurrences of the RFC2119 boilerplate.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf