[saag] Re: draft update on discussion on crypto practices at IETF
Paul Hoffman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 22 Jan 2025, at 10:37, Salz, Rich wrote: >> I think finding consensus in the Security Area on this is extremely important, given that we already are using them in our registries. > > Yes, we are already using I-D's in some SEC registries. Agree. > Establishing IETF consensus is more important. That is not for this mailing list, or covered in this document. > We know what SEC does I disagree with that on a factual basis. In the last year, I have had at least three people express surprise that some Security Area registries allow Internet Drafts as references. > and most people are okay with that If that's the case, great. We have never done a measurement. > so I agree this section does not belong. The whole section? The whole paragraph? Or just the sentence "This method is controversial with some members of the IETF community because drafts were originally designed to be impossible to access six months after publication, and wording based on the assumption of that inaccessibility still appears automatically in current Internet Drafts."? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]