Hiya, On 01/08/2023 22:09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 02-Aug-23 08:12, Nick Hilliard wrote:Brian E Carpenter wrote on 01/08/2023 03:26:I was under the illusion that RFC1984 + RFC2804 made this point quite clear. Do you think we need an RFC that says more?The contents of rfc1984 aged well
Yep. That's why we turned it into a BCP with no changes to the text 19 years after it was first published:-) [1][1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/
One potential addition: the current round of proposals include suggestions to fillet various classes of encryption clients, for example personal messaging systems. This is slightly different to the topics discussed in rfc1984, but in the current round of encryption angst, no less of a problem.Correct. Those two RFCs don't talk about backdoors in the host, for example.Neither does RFC7258.Who's going to write the draft,
I'd help... always fun doing those things:-)
and will the IETF+IESG support it?
My guess is the IETF would, after the usual extended LC discussions. I guess we'd need a draft to run by the SEC ADs to get a sense of whether they or the IESG would be willing or not. Cheers, S.
Brian
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
