Hi, On the whole I support RFC 1984 as already being a well established best current practice. Before we elevate the document, I would ask this simple question: what purpose is intended in doing so? If the purpose is to inform policy makers that breaking encryption in some way either through key escrow, export (or import) limitations, or limiting key length is a bad idea, then upgrading 1984 to a BCP really the wrong mechanism. Upgrading something from informational to BCP may have some meaning *to us*, but generally not to others. To me a better approach may be for the IESG and IAB to issue another joint statement that recognizes the value of RFC 1984 and makes clear that the key ideas put forth then are still correct now, while at the same time addressing some concerns that are really on the minds of some policy makers.[*] Applying the principles from 1996 in today's world would be more helpful, IMHO, in the public arena. Just changing the label in rfc-index.txt doesn't on its own accomplish that. Which brings me to a final point. Somewhere in this process, someone (preferably either a shepherding AD or the person requesting the change) can surely articulate the reasoning for this change. I'm actually not aware of any other informational document being upgraded to BCP, so I don't know what has been done in the past or what process was used, but I was surprised that this wasn't in a write-up somewhere when the LC announcement issued. Eliot [*] Those who know me know that I am not enthralled with what I call naked IAB or IESG statements along these lines. Usually I like an analysis to go with in the form of an RFC. In this case, however, that RFC would be 1984. On 8/10/15 7:13 PM, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make > the following status changes: > > - RFC1984 from Informational to Best Current Practice > (IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet) > > The supporting document for this request can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/ > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2015-09-07. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The affected document can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1984/ > > IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-rfc1984-to-best-current-practice/ballot/ > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature