Re: [SPKM] Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-zhu-pku2u-01.txt

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:52:23PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote:
> > When a feature of a revised spec is significantly clarified over the
> > previous version of the spec, a backwards interoperability warning
> > should be added.  This is missing in rfc-4178 4.2.
> 
> It is certainly not missing from where it belongs -- see RFC 4178,
> Appendix C:
> 
>    ...
>    The working group was not aware of any RFC 2478 implementations
>    deployed on the Internet.  Even if there are such implementations, it
>    is unlikely that they will inter-operate because of a critical flaw
>    in the description of the encoding of the mechanism list in RFC 2478.
> 
>    With the approach taken in this specification, security is ensured
>    between new implementations all the time while maintaining
>    interoperability with the implementations deployed within the IETF
>    community.  The working group believes that this justifies breaking
>    compatibility with a correct implementation of RFC 2478.
>    ...

I disagree.

As I said, I want to see a "change warning" _exactly_ where a feature
or detail is (incompatibly) changed, i.e. section 4.2. not in an Appendix.

The particular change is not even mentioned in the text you quoted,
probably because it wasn't realized as a change by the authors
and by reviewers.

If a change/clarification is locally highlighted as such, it will
much more likely result in adequate thought and review about the
change/clarification.

-Martin

_______________________________________________
SPKM mailing list
SPKM@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spkm