![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Keith, Joel,
I am in favor of publishing things like these in informational RFCs. And no, we should not shoot for completeness, for obvious reasons.It's difficult to imagine that these things could be adequately captured in a static document, for TCP or any other protocol, because new threats and countermeasures continue to be identified decades after the base protocol is well-settled. Maybe something like an expanded version of the RFC Editor's errata pages would be more appropriate?One might imagine an informational document which was routinely obsoleted by future iterations. Keeping it tractable is a product of necessarily limiting the scope.
Jari
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.