Subject: Re: [Uta] What are the actual best practices in the TLS BCP

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:29 -0700

--On June 19, 2014 18:11:55 -0400 "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think almost every section should have a rationale.  For example, 3.5 could
> say "because it's at the wrong layer and has been the subject of security
> weaknesses" :)

My editorial preference is to have rationale separated into an Appendix, and
keep the core document focused on technical guidance. The rationale isn't
necessary for implementers/operators. And for protocol designers, the rationale
may be useful separate from the technical content. I think RFC 2083 is a great
example of this content/rationale separation. I also don't like to waste time
arguing over details of rationale text, so moving it to a non-normative
Appendix can help with that goal.

This is only a preference. Getting the document done is more important to me,
so if the editor considers this too much work, the current structure is also
fine with me.

		- Chris

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:26:34 -0600

> so if the editor considers this too much work, the current structure is also

Personally I think it would be confusing in this document to do what you 
suggest. In RFC 2083 the rationale text is much longer, whereas here we 
have a sentence briefly justifying each recommendation. Moving those 
paragraphs to the end would make it harder for folks to read and 
understand the document, IMHO.

Peter

---

From: "Orit Levin (LCA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:20:00 +0000

+1 (as an individual reader).
Orit.

> _______________________________________________
> Uta mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta