On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 04:38:24PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > > On 08/27/2018 04:07 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > >On Monday, 27 August 2018 20:57:53 CEST Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >>On 08/27/2018 02:33 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > >>>On Thursday, 23 August 2018 16:35:01 CEST Robert Moskowitz wrote: > >> > >>Over the years and in protocol design development, I have heard too many > >>we can't. So I set about with, "here is one way." Since then I have > >>had a few people actually thank me for making it possible for them to > >>build an ecdsa pki for their product testing needs. Just one justifies > >>my effort. > >well, I see nothing wrong with providing documentation and how-to's, I just > >don't see that it should be elevated to an Internet Draft level... Well, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft/ . > >by its very nature it needs to be constantly updated, so having it in a static > >RFC is contrary to that > > that is the value of Internet Drafts that many of us IETFers have figured > out. draft versions can just keep on going and the tools will take you to > the current draft. IDs have become neat working documents, though there is > more github work coming along. More workgroups are doing requirements docs > that will never be published as RFCs; they will stay as IDs. Much better > source of why did the wg do? than plow through the old mailing list > archives. The IESG is actually encouraging such a use of IDs. Yup! Internet-Draft is a fine terminus for some types of document. Many TLS registries now have a registration policy that explicitly calls out an internet-draft that is never published as anything else, as a valid specification for getting a codepoint assignment. -Ben -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
