[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sensitivity Labels
% Gentlefolk,
%
% I propose that we officially remove the recommendation for Sensitivity
% Labels from RFC-1825, for several reasons:
%
% A) Although there are many (> 6) interoperable implementations of
% RFC-1828 and RFC-1829, none of them implement Sensitivity Labels.
At least 2 do implement sensitivity labels.
% B) Since RFC-1828 and RFC-1829 are more than ready to go to Draft
% Standard, but interoperability of Sensitivity Labels has not been
% demonstrated, by RFC-1602 we MUST remove Sensitivity Labels from our
% official WG documents.
RFC-1828 and RFC-1829 are NOT ready to go to Draft Standard. In
fact, they CANNOT go to Draft Standard because RFC-1825 through RFC-1827
are not ready to move forward.
Further, RFC-1829 is known to be vulnerable to active attacks.
% C) Sensitivity Labels are ill-defined.
Hardly. See RFC-1108.
% D) Commercial vendors have not found a demand for Sensitivity Labels.
Also untrue.
The set of workstation vendors that implement Sensitivity Labels includes
HP, DEC, IBM, Sun and the set of router vendors includes at least Cisco
and Network Systems.
% Then, you have not followed the Standards Process in RFC-1602. The time
% for updating them is upon us.
False. We are NOT required to move them forward at the first opportunity
to do so. There is no process violation in waiting until things are
ready to move forward.
Ran
rja@cisco.com