On 2/16/16 3:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>> One thing to keep in mind is that, if the document describing the >>> currently deployed protocol is informational, we may have a tricky time >>> making the extensions be standards track; it would (presumably) require >>> a downref. >> >> it would; it is not logically a huge problem, merely wierd. >> >> I doubt very much that a push for better securing of an existing mature >> protocol is the likely source of controversy there. > > what is amusing is that some folk seem to be contemplating that the > rfc of an old and widely distributed and used protocol should not be > standard.
Occasionally I wonder if "this problem" is the hill I'm going to choose to die on... Then I remember I'm at the IETF, and self-restraint suggests otherwise. > randy >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
