IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] [saag] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-00.txt]

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Mon, 04 October 2010 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0403A6E8E; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P+2YYDxihSj2; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4DC3A6CB0; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o94M7I9x024413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:07:19 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240811c8d00069ac58@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <20101004215227.GQ9501@oracle.com>
References: <4CA65AD7.80300@ieca.com> <p06240808c8cd060efcb4@[10.20.30.158]> <1702_1286218784_o94IxhJi008577_20101004185831.GJ9501@oracle.com> <9E4F286124541057D85563F1@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <20101004215227.GQ9501@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:07:16 -0700
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org, saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [saag] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:10:14 -0000

At 4:52 PM -0500 10/4/10, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>Sure.  But BCP != Standards-Track.

BCP ~= Standards Track. From RFC 2026:

5.  BEST CURRENT PRACTICE (BCP) RFCs

   The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
   standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.  A
   BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as
   standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF
   community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking
   on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way
   to perform some operations or IETF process function.

>And still, BCPs are not self-enforcing.  The IETF and the IESG need to
>enforce them actively.

Indeed.

>I think we're in agreement.

Indeed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email