Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:58 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I have opinions about this draft that I've been pretty vocal about to the
> working group during the past couple of years and in the first two WGLCs,
> but just to follow up on this point:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:02 PM Paul Vixie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 10 June 2020 15:45:50 UTC Mike Bishop wrote:
>>
>
> snipped
>
>
>> > On the whole, I think this document could be suitable for publication
>> as an
>> > Informational RFC; it provides real-world context for a trade-off that
>> > every protocol designer needs to consider carefully.  However, I don’t
>> > believe its current state reflects, in Ekr’s words, “the IETF
>> community's
>> > view of the relative priority of these concerns.”
>>
>> the ietf community is incredibly narrow compared to the world it serves.
>> very
>> few of the people and companies whose future will be chosen for them by
>> ietf
>> work can afford the time or travel it takes to be represented. this may
>> be an
>> inconvenient truth, but it is my reason for considering whether this
>> document
>> reflects the broader view of the world's digital economy. i think it does.
>>
>
> Keeping in mind that the target is publication as an Informational RFC, I
> believe the governing BCP definition is still
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.2, which says
>
> 4.2.2  Informational
>
>    An "Informational" specification is published for the general
>    information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
>    Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
>    designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
>    very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
>    sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
>    that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
>    (see section 4.2.3).
>

> Does anyone think that's been updated?
>

Indeed it has:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04

-Ekr