Re: Revised Last Call: 'SSH Transport Layer Encryption Modes' to Proposed

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:24 -0400 Sam Hartman 
<hartmans-ietf at mit.edu> wrote:

> > > > > > "iesg" == The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org> writes:
>
>     iesg> This last call is being reissued because this
> document     iesg> contains a normative reference to an
> informational RFC:
>
>     iesg> RFC 2144 The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm. C.
> Adams. May     iesg> 1997.
>
>     iesg> It is customary to include normative references to
>     iesg> informational documents describing cryptographic
> algorithms.     iesg> However the procedures of RFC 3967
> require that this     iesg> normative reference be called out
> in the IETF last call.
>
>
> For the record I'd like to say that RFc 3967 seems poorly
> considered and I don't think strikes a reasonable balance
> between efficiency and quality.
>
> In particular RFC 3967 does not allow classes of documents
> such as cryptographic algorithms to be exempted from last call
> notice, only single documents.

For the record,

	* Does your comment/ position above represent an IESG
	consensus or your minority position?
	
	* Can we expect to see a draft of 3967bis that contains
	specific text with the rules you prefer?

Even if one believes that it is desirable, 3967 already weakens 
traditional norms for documents on the IETF standards track.  A 
suggestion that further weakening is needed definitely calls for 
some discussion, at least IMO.

    john






_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf