[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-shin-augmented-pake-10

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Tina TSOU writes:
> The relationship between this document and RFC 6467 is odd. In the
> ordinary course of events this document would have a normative
> dependency on RFC 6467.

Not exactly. The original intention is that all documents using
numbers defined in my draft (now RFC6467) would be self-containing,
and there might not even be need for publishing my draft as RFC, it
was originally just written as tool so that all secure password method
drafts could coordinate their numbers. As it is now published as RFC,
I think it is ok to make either normative or non-normative reference
to it, depending whether the document itself is self-containing or
not.

Currently I think all the secure password method documents are
self-containing, thus non-normative reference is needed, the
implementor who is implementing the secure password method in
question, does not NEED to read RFC6467 to be able to implement for
example draft-shin-augmented-pake as that draft already contains all
information needed. 

> It is obvious that the latter was written
> after the present document, and avoidance of the dependency was
> deliberate on both sides. Still, the authors of this document might
> reconsider, even though RFC 6467 would be a down-reference since it
> is Informational. 

The intended status of draft-shin-augmented-pake is listed as
experimental, so there really a down-reference problem there?

Anyways as draft-shin-augmented-pake self-contained, the reference can
be non-normative.
-- 
[e-mail]