On Dec 10, 2024, at 8:55 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > In the spirit of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, further > quoting from 2026: > > * Under no circumstances should an Internet-Draft * > * be referenced by any paper, report, or Request- * > * for-Proposal, nor should a vendor claim compliance * > * with an Internet-Draft. *
Counter point: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kamath-pppext-peapv0-00.txt This documents an EAP type. While Microsoft has some updated documentation on their web site, that was written long after the above I-D. I can guarantee that essentially everyone implementing or requiring PEAP references this I-D. All implementations claim support for this I-D. Every device which is capable of doing 802.1X / WiFi supports this I-D. and claims so publicly. A simple search of the net will show this. Without exaggerating too much, there are likely to be billions of devices which implement this draft. Q: Is the comment you quoted above wrong? Q: Or are all of the vendors wrong to claim compliance with an I-D? Q: Or maybe the IETF is wrong for not publishing that I-D as an individual draft? Perhaps people are getting better at publishing specs in a format other than an I-D. But so long as the IETF doesn't remove expired drafts from its archives, people will refer to them. IMHO, reality trumps wishful thinking. If it is the official position of the IETF that vendors shouldn't claim compliance with an Internet Draft, then perhaps the IETF should ensure that useful and implemented Internet Drafts are (a) published as an RFC, or (b) removed from public presence. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
