[saag] Re: [Ext] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 10:48 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
[email protected]> wrote:

> >Given your activity in TLS, you might remember RFC 8701. But there's also
> RFC RFC 8751 and other IETF WG products that describe part of the world and
> give > guidance about how to use it.
>
> > Also, of course, RFCs from the ISE and IAB, such as 8726, 8728 and 8729.
>
> Thanks.  Most seem to use 2119 language, which this draft deliberately
> doesn't. I'm still not comfortable with an informational draft making
> recommendations, but I seem to be in the minority with that opinion and it
> also seems that there's no requirement they be followed so I'll
> (hopefully/probably :) stop.
>

FWIW, I am also uncomfortable with informational documents making external
normative statements.

The distinction I am trying to draw here is that if you have an
Informational document describing a protocol it's reasonable for it to use
normative language that applies to those who implement the protocol.
However, I would prefer we not have Informational documents that impose
normative requirements on other protocols, etc.

-Ekr


>
> >This document doesn't describe "best": it describes some things to think
> about. It also doesn't just describe "current": a lot of it is about the
> past so that people understand how to apply things in the future.
>
> It does more than describe some things to think about, it recommends what
> to do.  (So much for the promise above :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]