RE: Question on security document

[Paul Koning <ni1d@arrl.net>]

Excerpt of message (sent 17 October 2001) by Charles Monia:
> Hi:
> 
> I had assumed that one goal of the document was to set forth the language
> necessary for each spec to pass muster with the IESG in the realm of
> security.  If that's correct, I'm concerned that the suggested change may
> compromise that intent.
> 
> Charles
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Snively [mailto:rsnively@Brocade.COM]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:31 PM
> > To: 'ips@ece.cmu.edu'
> > Subject: Question on security document
> > 
> > 
> > I have a recommendation to the authors of the security 
> > document:
> > ...

The problem, as Bob is right to point out, is that informational RFCs
by definition cannot establish requirements on implementations.  So if
you want there to be security requirements that apply to iFCP, iSCSI,
and so on, they can only be stated in standards track RFCs, not
informational RFCs.  It may be a separate document or part of the IPS
document it applies to.

So one answer is for the security draft not to be informational
anymore.

	paul