Re: [Rfcplusplus] labeling/experiments/ and ramifications

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi EKR,


On 04.07.18 19:02, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I would note that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
> encodes this practice and it's currently in the RFC-Ed queue, so if
> you object, you ought to do it soon.
>

That seems a bit late.  If ALL you're saying in that document is,
“specification required”, no reason to stall that draft if it's in the
RFC Editor queue. 

Still, I don't think Internet Drafts are what the authors of 8126 had in
mind when they wrote that text, and it would raise a concern about what
the registry would look like with such multiple entries, and how
interoperability would be affected.  A nice attribute of an RFC is that
it denotes at least a clear stop of specification development, and
that's not nothing.  This having been said, that would presumably also
be true of any other labeled thing we are talking about here (I hope).


>
>     What I was thinking about: I'm not sure that this is just about a
>     code point reference.  It's also about providing access to
>     information by which others can assess the value of the
>     algorithm.  Yes, there are other venues, but as you yourself
>     pointed out, there really hasn't been any harm in having the
>     algorithm published as an RFC:
>>
>>         It does seem to me that for
>>         national algorithms, they will be in the libraries anyway because
>>         they will be mandatory procurement requirements. 
>>
>>
>>     That's certainly an understandable prediction, but I haven't
>>     found it to be true in practice.
>
>     Not a great demonstration of brand dilution, right?
>
>
> Well, maybe. We got requests to implement these, and the fact that
> they were RFCs and in some cases standards track RFCs was, IIRC, used
> as an argument. However, we also felt we could say "no". However, I've
> also seen algorithms in libraries (including NSS) mostly because
> someone decided to do as much as was in some set of RFCs, so practices
> differ, even within projects.

You guys may be in a good position to say no.  I could EASILY imagine
(remember?) others who weren't in so good a position.

Eliot