Document: draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-01-carpenter Reviewer: Brian E Carpenter Date: 16 augusti 2004 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms -01.txt > Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements For ESP And AH > (Proposed Standard) - 3 of 4 > Token: Russ Housley > REVIEWER: Brian Carpenter This seems to be well written and ready to go; no doubt the WG debated long and hard to reach the recommendations. One meta comment however: > In addition we will define some additional terms here: > SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD. However it is likely > that an algorithm marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted at > some future time to be a MUST. > SHOULD- This terms means the same as SHOULD. However it is > likely > that an algorithm marked as SHOULD- will be deprecated > to > a MAY or worse in a future version of this document. > MUST- This term means the same as MUST. However we expect at > some point in the future this algorithm will no longer > be > a MUST. The IESG obviously needs to take a conscious decision to endorse this terminology. My taste would be for something more precise, to give implementors unambiguous guidance. As in: SHOULD+ Will become MUST in next version. SHOULD- Will become MAY or SHOULD NOT in next version. MUST- Will become SHOULD, MAY, or SHOULD NOT in next version. But, silly me, we don't have version numbering in IETF standards. Brian