Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian Haberman <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > BCP is not limited to network administration. They are also applicable
    > to implementers. RFCs 6881 and 7696 are examples of BCPs aimed at
    > implementers.

So I think these are poor examples, and actually demonstrates why minimal
should be standards track.

RFC7696:
             Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm Agility
            and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms

I read this as guidelines to people writing IETF protocol specifications.
For the people writing code or planning the implementation the protocol is
either algorithm agile or not.

RFC6881:
          Best Current Practice for Communications Services in
                      Support of Emergency Calling

is definitely more implementer focused, in that a product manager needs to
take this into account, and I can see "RFC6881 compliance" showing up in an
RFP.  I don't think our BCPs should show up be fundamental content in RFP.
(An person informed about both NAFTA/TPP/CETA and IETF process would conclude
our BCPs are not performance specifications under the agreement. Fortunately
for the IETF, there are few people who know both. I know it only as the
hammer we use to deal with vendor proprietary protocols in government procurement)

Minimal is definitely more like 6881 than 7696.

BUT, I think it (rfc6881) should have been published as standards track myself!


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-