[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
procedural RE: problems with draft-jenkins-ipsec-rekeying-06.txt
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Tim Jenkins wrote:
> First, my understanding of an information RFC "... does not represent an
> Internet community consensus or recommendation" ...
> Given that I believe and have been told by others that the information in
> this document is of value to IPsec implementors, I wanted to make the
> information available persistently. The only way that I know how to do that
> under the current circumstances is to make it an informational RFC.
Unfortunately, when an Informational RFC is the sole document discussing
how to solve vexing interoperability problems, it tends to become a
de-facto standard even if it explicitly disclaims that status. RFC 1036
was "the standard" for Usenet article formatting for a decade, even though
it is (in modern terminology) an Informational RFC.
There is a crying need for a standards-track effort in this area, but
currently none is being made.
We see a very real possibility of approaches which we consider inferior
becoming accepted practice, hampering interoperability with better
approaches, simply because they are the ones described by the only
easily-accessible document on the subject. Pasting a disclaimer on the
document will not prevent this, not when the document fills a persistent
and painful vacuum. Hence our objections.
Henry Spencer
henry@spsystems.net
Follow-Ups:
References: