[BXXPwg] Re: WG Review: Blocks eXtensible eXchange Protocol (bxxpwg)

Fred Baker fred@cisco.com
Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:02:21 -0700

At 09:43 PM 6/19/00 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
>I suggest, however, that the charter be
> > amended to explicitly require that the resulting framework
> > support strong authentication and security services.  The
> > current charter implies such are required per the blocks
> > reference.

I'm probably speaking out of turn, but I would expect that the working 
group might recommend that the existing documents get published as "version 
1" RFCs, informational or historical, and proceed to work on version 2. 
Reason: I am told that there is fielded code, which is the reason that the 
charter suggests that backward compatibility is something to be maintained 
when possible to do so without compromising new services that the working 
group wants to offer. You would want, I should think, to document both the 
running code and the WG product. But I could be wrong on that.

As you mention, the existing documents support strong authentication and 
security services, and I believe that a downgrading of that requirement in 
version two would be viewed as a giant leap backwards. It could be put into 
the charter if required, but it would be to say "don't take this out" 
rather than "add it".

This is a pleasant situation - usually the IESG is fighting with a working 
group trying to get them to add it.