Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Charter Statement

> From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]>

> ...
>   Curiously, the security APIs (RFC 2744 and 2853) are
> of proposed standards. I could not see any difference
> in the way these APIs are defined, i.e. 2292 and 2744.

Don't assume that everything done in the IETF is correct even by the
IETF's own rules. 

RFC 2853 is about Java and RFC 2744 seems related.  Java is supposed
to be independent of and portable to almost any system.  You're supposed
to be able send Java programs over the wire and have them work.  That
suggests that conformance testing of black boxes that implment those
standards can be done by plugging them into a network and running
tests.  Mobile phones might need to be "plugged into" a shielded room
or otherwise connected by wireless "wires," but I suspect they could
still be conformance tested.  That would not true of the proposed L2
triggers API particularly for some of the devices that supposedly need
it, mobile phones.

> ...
>   So what is wrong with informational RFCs that are
> needed and have great potential to be used?

Who says there would be anything wrong with them?

The IESG will publish any reasonable Informational RFC.  I've argued
for perhaps 10 years that is bad, because it allows and encourages
people to try to steal the IETF's imprimatur.  However, even I
don't see anything wrong with this sort of Informational RFC.

I think James Carlson is pointing out that a better question is what
would be right with it.  Anyone who hopes that an L2 Triggers RFC
would cause code to appear would be disappointed.  You mentioned RFC
2292.  I have a freely distributable package that wants to use IPv6
sockets.  Porting and distributing it has shown that even today, more
than 4 years after RFC 2292 was published, many current and popular
UNIX systems still do not entirely support RFC 2292.  What's more,
RFC 2292 is about an interface with relatively little controversy and
for the restricted set of UNIX-like platforms.  L2 triggers would be
about an area with decades of justifiable controversy and it would
evidently apply to most or all platforms.

The only issue is the insistance on the Standards Track.


Vernon Schryver    [email protected]

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/