Re: Publication track for IBE documents (Was Second Last Call...)

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> So while I don't strongly object to these as informational RFCs,
> I do wonder why, if only one implementation is ever likely, we
> need any RFC at all. Its not like these docs describe something
> one couldn't easily figure out were there a need, given that
> the (elegant but not especially useful) crypto has been around
> for a while without finding any serious applications.
>   
My personal opinion is that Informational documents should have a low 
bar for publication.

Thus, in the absence of compelling other information (such as a claim 
that the technology is incompetently described, or can't be implemented 
from the specs), I'd favour publication.

(That said, the RFC Editor's work on these will cost the IETF a known 
amount of dollars. The bar shouldn't be TOO low.)

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