>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> --On Wednesday, August 24, 2005 17:24 -0400 Sam Hartman
John> <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> "iesg" == The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
iesg> This last call is being reissued because this
>> document iesg> contains a normative reference to an
>> informational RFC:
>>
iesg> RFC 2144 The CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm. C.
>> Adams. May iesg> 1997.
>>
iesg> It is customary to include normative references to
iesg> informational documents describing cryptographic
>> algorithms. iesg> However the procedures of RFC 3967 require
>> that this iesg> normative reference be called out in the IETF
>> last call.
>>
>>
>> For the record I'd like to say that RFc 3967 seems poorly
>> considered and I don't think strikes a reasonable balance
>> between efficiency and quality.
>>
>> In particular RFC 3967 does not allow classes of documents such
>> as cryptographic algorithms to be exempted from last call
>> notice, only single documents.
John> For the record,
John> * Does your comment/ position above represent an IESG
John> consensus or your minority position?
I have no idea. It's my individual opinion; I was hoping by sharing
Iit I would either find agreement or disagreement and that would
inform my thinking about next courses of action.
I know of no IESG consensus on this action, although clearly the IESG
considered 3967 reasonable at time of approval.
Your point is well taken.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf