Re: [OAUTH-WG] Referencing TLS


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 3, 2015, at 3:16 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes it is good, though reading that BCP may scare off implementers who will just ignore it. 
> 
> We may still want to give the current advice of >= tls 1.2 at the point of publication see BCP xx for additional considerations. 
> 
I think it's fine to do that.  Using the recommended version as the base at time of publication with a pointer to the BCP is appropriate.

Thanks,
Kathleen 
> John B. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I learned something new: we can reference a BCP (instead of an RFC) and
>> even if the RFC gets up-dated we will still have a stable reference.
>> (See Stephen's response to my question below).
>> 
>> This is what we should do for our documents when we reference TLS in the
>> future. We would reference the yet-to-become BCP (currently UTA-TLS
>> document) and we essentially point to the recommended usage for TLS
>> (version, ciphersuite, everything).
>> 
>> Isn't that great?
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>> On 02/04/15 19:09, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>> 
>>> if I understand it correctly, you are saying if we reference a BCP #
>>> (instead of the RFC) then a revised RFC will get the same BCP #. I have
>>> never heard about that and if that's indeed true that would be cool. I
>>> might also have misunderstood your idea though.
>> 
>> Yep, that's it. XML2RFC makes it hard but you can do it, worst
>> case via an RFC editor note
>> 
>> S.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth