Re: [OAUTH-WG] Referencing TLS

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. 

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