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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 9:50 PM +0100 10/3/10, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>> Must say I agree with Paul's concerns below (and in particular
>> hesitated too when I read the intended "MUST NOT" effect of a guidance
>> informational draft on standards documents).
>> However, I think the general idea to write a guidance ID is a good idea
>>from Tim, et al.
> 
> Fully agree (certainly more useful than such guidance coming from you or I). However, it would be nice if the document said why they were the ones writing it.

The 2119 language should not have been included.  We're only trying to 
update the security considerations not provide mandates.  This draft 
should have followed the same format as the recent MD2/4/5 security 
consideration update drafts and those don't include 2119 language. 
I'm sorry for any confusion.

We wrote this draft because somebody asked for it as part of their 
comments on the MD2/4/5 drafts (and I thought it was low hanging 
fruit).  I assure you there is no sinister plan.

We'll update the draft with the Paul's wording, remove the 2119 
reference, and address off-list comments from Ran and Sheila.

spt