Re: Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP

Hi,

On the whole I support RFC 1984 as already being a well established best
current practice.  Before we elevate the document, I would ask this
simple question: what purpose is intended in doing so?  If the purpose
is to inform policy makers  that breaking encryption in some way either
through key escrow, export (or import) limitations, or limiting key
length is a bad idea, then upgrading 1984 to a BCP really the wrong
mechanism.   Upgrading something from informational to BCP may have some
meaning *to us*, but generally not to others.

To me a better approach may be for the IESG and IAB to issue another
joint statement that recognizes the value of RFC 1984 and makes clear
that the key ideas put forth then are still correct now, while at the
same time addressing some concerns that are really on the minds of some
policy makers.[*]  Applying the principles from 1996 in today's world
would be more helpful, IMHO, in the public arena.  Just changing the
label in rfc-index.txt doesn't on its own accomplish that.

Which brings me to a final point.  Somewhere in this process, someone
(preferably either a shepherding AD or the person requesting the change)
can surely articulate the reasoning for this change.  I'm actually not
aware of any other informational document being upgraded to BCP, so I
don't know what has been done in the past or what process was used, but
I was surprised that this wasn't in a write-up somewhere when the LC
announcement issued.

Eliot

[*] Those who know me know that I am not enthralled with what I call
naked IAB or IESG statements along these lines.  Usually I like an
analysis to go with in the form of an RFC.  In this case, however, that
RFC would be 1984.

On 8/10/15 7:13 PM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC1984 from Informational to Best Current Practice
>     (IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet)
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/
>
> 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
> ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2015-09-07. Exceptionally, comments 
> may be
> sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The affected document can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1984/
>
> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/ballot/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature