Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 4/10/2024 10:07 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> According to the datracker, you were the document shepherd, but the shepherd report that Sean added to the tracker was done against the -03 draft (note the date of the report vs the post date of -04).  The -04 draft was where the notes were added.  None of the text in either the shepherd report nor the last call announcement text mentioned that  IDs were now acceptable for Specification Required references.
> Why do you think that this applies to anything other than the
> registries specifically named in the RFC?
> Sincerely,
> Watson

Hi -

Well context should have told you that the comment you snipped out was 
specific to RFC8447, but still let's assume for argument's sake that it 
wasn't completely clear:

Not sure you read all of the thread, but a) 8447 refers to a specific 
set of registries and rewrote the meaning of "Specification Required" 
for those registries, b) EKR suggested that 8447 was enough of a 
precedent that this new meaning could be carried to other registries, c) 
I suggested that more work needs to be done before we give up on IDs as 
"draft documents" and "to cite them as other than 'work in progress'" 
and that RFC8447 was probably not vetted completely by the community for 
this change - however limited.

So - sort of?   A well meaning participant could read 8447 and the 
related registries and go "Ooooh - shiny - I want to do that too!"  If 
that document were as innocuous and registry boiler plate, its possible 
that could make it through all of the filters that 8447 made it 
through.  I'd prefer that not happen without actually changing the 
process and resolving what it actually means to cite an ID as a code 
point reference.

So that's where we are.

Or at least where I am.

Mike

(*sigh* too late to change the subject line - sorry should have been 
done a long while back).