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@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
