RE: Remaing issues on draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

 

 

 

From: Dave Nelson [mailto:dnelson@elbrys.com]

 

[MB] - Introduction,second paragraph. I don't think this necessarily fits the context of a published RFC. In general, the content of WG documents is based on mailing list discussion.  And, it's usual that an informational document is published to provide the type of information that is noted in that paragraph. So, I would think you could just delete that paragraph.

[BA] The mailing list discussion is mentioned to describe how the document evolved in response to the original IESG request.  Alternatively, it would be possible to cite the RFC 6218 IESG note:

IESG Note

   The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in

   the RADEXT WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

   The IESG recommends that the RADEXT WG proceed with the work for an

   interoperable modern key wrap solution using attributes from the

   standard space as part of its charter.

[DN] I guess either approach would work.  While there are clearly established styles for RFCs, I think that some of the "rules" can be relaxed for an "in-house" document, such as a requirements document.

 

[[DR]] Actually I do not think that the IESG note approach would work. This work is not only ‘related to IETF work done in the RADEXT WG’ but is actually a result of chartered work in the WG.

 

Maybe the way to go is to talk with Russ and see whether he stands behind the first three comments in the GenART review. Russ knows well the history and the background of this work, and he may have an opinion whether including the history of the document and the WG road information is useful.

 

Regards,

 

Dan