On 8/11/15 1:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > Hiya, > > Responding to a few things at once: > > On 10/08/15 22:29, Eliot Lear wrote: >> The question I would still >> like clearly answered is the one that Dave Crocker asked. What is the >> intended effect? > This may have already been answered sufficiently well by Brian, but > in addition to what he said I think that this status change is just > recognising reality as we do treat RFC1984 as a BCP. And formally > recognising that could also avoid us having to deal with arguments > about RFC status or the age of the RFC should someone start to argue > afresh for the IETF to e.g. support mandatory key escrow. (I'm not > aware that we're about to see any such argument btw so that last is > more insurance than anything.) Ok. Thanks. To be clear, I have no serious concern with 1984 being upgraded. As I wrote, the text has stood the test of time quite well. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature