Re: Why have we gotten away from running code?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 01:21 07/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I agree with almost everything that Brian Rosen says in his note - the only thing that made me wonder, after Steve Bellovin talked at the IAB plenary about a crypto protocol that got blown twice in a specification that had only three message (message-equivalents? sorry if I misunderstood), that the definition of "complexity is low" may be a lot harder than we would have thought intuitively!
Spencer

Clearly, there are specifications where the complexity is low, and we have
enough experience with the subject that we can be reasonably sure it works
without running code.

Full agreement with both. With the additional remarks that "low complexity" may result from a lack of proper consideration of the charter (what should always be the first task of a WG) or from a lack of competence to see that complexity; and that great care should be given that the description of never ran code solutions are not labelled "BCP" just because their Draft claims to replace an RFC with a BCP number.
jfc


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]