On 8/11/15 1:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
Responding to a few things at once:
On 10/08/15 22:29, Eliot Lear wrote:
The question I would still
like clearly answered is the one that Dave Crocker asked. What is the
intended effect?
This may have already been answered sufficiently well by Brian, but
in addition to what he said I think that this status change is just
recognising reality as we do treat RFC1984 as a BCP. And formally
recognising that could also avoid us having to deal with arguments
about RFC status or the age of the RFC should someone start to argue
afresh for the IETF to e.g. support mandatory key escrow. (I'm not
aware that we're about to see any such argument btw so that last is
more insurance than anything.)
Ok. Thanks. To be clear, I have no serious concern with 1984 being
upgraded. As I wrote, the text has stood the test of time quite well.
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature