|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Black_David@xxxxxxx wrote:
Everyone, During AD Review of the NodeArchitecture key draft: Declarative Public Extension Key for iSCSI Node Architecture draft-ietf-ips-iscsi-nodearch-key-02.txt our AD (Lars) observed that the draft is of sufficient quality and utility to be a standards-track RFC (i.e., be published as a proposed standard RFC instead of as an informational RFC). In order to do that, we need to deal with the following language in Section 12.22 of RFC 3720: For IANA registered keys the string following X# must be registered with IANA and the use of the key MUST be described by an informational RFC. Similar language exists for Y# digest formats and Z# authentication methods. The exclusion of experimental and standards track RFCs is believed to be an oversight in all three cases.
My thought when we did this was that if a key was going to be a proposed standard, we would not use the [XYZ]# space for it.
So rather than changing the text, why not just make the key "NodeArchitecture"? :-) My understanding is that existing implementations will (should?) react the same way to such a key as they would to X#NodeArchitecture (NotUnderstood), so we don't have an interoperation issue.
If the group wants to stick with X#, I am not opposed to changing the text.
Take care, Bill -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFM982DJT2Egh26K0RAt8NAKCJmPK0zJMPicXCdIFlsyGoIJdAdQCdEt3U 2J3Rp7umKXhf+wfDe7lmOJQ= =mqAt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ips mailing list Ips@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips