Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 3/25/24 9:04 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> As for whether an Internet-Draft is acceptable, the IETF community 
> decided some time ago that drafts do not get deleted, so they meet the 
> requirements. This is also a good thing for several reasons. For 
> example, several of the examples I quoted above would not come to the 
> IETF if they had to write an RFC. Even if they do come, things change – 
> SPDY becoming QUIC for example – so should we not register SPDY? Also, 
> not every individual or organization has the wherewithal to have 
> long-lasting links to documentation, and in many cases the IETF would 
> probably prefer those things be kept as an IETF resource.

When things are moved or deleted it's not, unfortunately, commonly
the case that people check to see what depends on the reference.  So
I think that would be an argument for keeping supporting documents
for stuff that's assigned an IANA codepoint in the IETF namespace.
I'm unconvinced that requires publication as an RFC.

Bibliographic description assumes that new editions or revisions of
a document (or thing being cataloged) can be released, which is why
it includes elements like edition number, date, publisher, etc.,
and it seems to me that if the goal here is to associate an IANA
mumble with a definition of its use, an internet draft is probably
sufficient.  The assignments of these codepoints don't represent
any sort of assurance about the quality, stability, etc. of the
associated protocol, and it seems odd to me to require much beyond
expert review and an identifier that's highly likely to be stable for
the instance of the document that was used for the review.

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[e-mail]

Software longa, hardware brevis