On 12/Jan/12 00:16, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman >> >>> John and I collaborated on the following edits. Please indicate >>> whether or not you approve, and suggest any adjustments needed. I'll >>> include them in a revision right after IETF LC closes. >>> >>> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/marf.html >> >> Looks good to me.
+1 > Thanks for that. Just to make sure our bases are all covered, the > Gen-ART reviewer is pushing a little on the idea of saying the use > of a secure hash ought to be a SHOULD, while we're currently using > "suggested" given the non-critical use of security here. > > So just to get it on the record, do we prefer the "suggested" > language, or is a SHOULD more appropriate? Saying "a secure hash is RECOMMENDED" (rather than "suggested") doesn't really change the meaning, but makes the whole section overly compelling. To counter-balance that, I'd borrow some text from John's post --such as the phrase "a steel lock on a cardboard box". _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
