> 8 янв. 2022 г., в 21:19, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> написал(а): > >> More recently, at least for the relevant GOST specs, the > practice has apparently shifted to publishing them as > Informational in the Independent stream. > > They are also sometimes published because specification, or standard, exists outside of the IETF, and the IETF cryptography community prefers items published by the IETF, rather than external documents that might change or are located behind a paywall, are in a language other than English, etc. Yes, that was exactly the reason for publishing _algorithms_ as Informational RFCs. To have a source of information and reference. The implementation of these algorithms in given protocols - is quite different thing, IMO it should go through ordinary way (and use algorithm description Informational RFC as a reference), so I wonder a way 4491bis goes,.. In any case this has no relation to the questions I asked before. I repeat it in other words: - why it was suddenly requested to put «Historic» label on one given algorithm, without any attempt to make «historic» other algorithms, which deserves it much more for decades. - why the procedure exists which makes possible to start the process of labelling «Historic» something by request of some anonymous «participant» with one paragraph «rationale». dol@ > CFRG has documented things before (RFC 9106 and 7748 come to mind), and Simon Joseffson [1] has been notably active in doing this kind of thing. > > I recall discussions about doing this taking place at various TLS and CFRG meetings, but I have no idea if a policy is written down anywhere. I'm sure it's not. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Simon%20Josefsson > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
