One point that seems to be ambiguous here is what the role of an rfc
is with respect to defacto standards status
In theory informational rfc do not establish or modify standards. In
practice the broken process that stops anything being a standard and
makes those we do have obsolete means that this is not obvious
In my view a should or must in an informational rfc only has scope to
the document itself. So the gost draft should use MUST or Should in my
view
But I can see how this could confuse
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2010, at 9:52 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
On one point in this discussion...
I'm not saying that everyone will SEE it, but there actually is an
errata process for RFCs, and the omission of the year-version suffix
in RFC 4357 seems like something that would be really helpful to
submit an errata for.
Submission page is at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php.
The errata link does show up on many hyperlinked versions of RFCs,
so things aren't as bleak as they were ten years ago, to pick an
interval.
Thanks,
Spencer
----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Rex" <mrex@xxxxxxx>
To: "Basil Dolmatov" <dol@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
> IMHO, rfc4357 should have been completely stripped from GOST
R34.10-1994
> before publication if what you describes really applies to this >
algorithm.
I think that is a question to authors of RFC4357 and I think that
corrections should be issued.
There is no correction process for RFCs.
Preferably the new document about GOST R34.10 signature algorithms
should be merged with rfc4357 into rfc4357bis, and this time the
GOST R34.10-1994 algorithm should only be mentioned in the Security
Considerations as having been completely retired/phased out in 2004.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf