Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Review of draft-ietf-forces-implementation-report-02

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

 



Hi Joel,
At 18:06 11-08-10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
reasons, we will remove it ourselves. The document is being publsiehd as informational, and the underlying documents were just published as PS. We are NOT trying to move them

Out of curiosity, why is the implementation report being published as a RFC?

to Draft Standard. We need to actually build stuff with it first. (But yes, the sentence claims that we meet the requirements for DS, and we don't.)

Yes. Even if the (mandatory) SCTP-TML IPsec security framework was implemented (see DISCUSS), the requirements for DS are still not met.

Is the following sentence from Section 3 going to be removed:

 "The authors attest that the ForCES Protocol, Model and SCTP-TML meet
  the requirements for Draft Standard."

As a nit from RFC 4301:

  'The spelling "IPsec" is preferred and used throughout this and all
   related IPsec standards.  All other capitalizations of IPsec (e.g.,
   IPSEC, IPSec, ipsec) are deprecated.  However, any capitalization of
   the sequence of letters "IPsec" should be understood to refer to the
   IPsec protocols.'

Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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