--On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:11 -0400 Tony Hansen
<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML
from which extraction might have been easier, but also no
response yet. And I had found several libraries, but not the
RFC code. ... But the broader point is that if it's worth the
IETF publishing the code as an RFC, it's worth making the
code available straightforwardly.
I've suggested on a couple occasions to the RFC Editor that,
when an RFC provides source code, they should allow
rfcXXXX.tar or rfcXXXX.tgz to be provided as well.
There's only a handful of RFCs that do provide source code,
for whatever reason, so this should not be an onerous
additional feature.
Folks, IANAL, but please be _very_ careful about the comment Joe
made about the potential difference between publishing a paper
or article that contains code and exporting the code itself or
making it generally available for export. I have no reason to
believe that this particular case is a problem given how widely
the details of SHA-2 has been published but, if we want the RFC
Editor to go into the code distribution business, we should be
very sure that an attorney with the right specialties has looked
at the situation and either cleared it generally or advised on
what needs to be examined case by case.
john