Security Considerations: bad split

[Mark Davis]

Sorry I wasn't clear.
What I mean is the "content" of the security considerations needs to be in
one place. Each document will have its security considerations section, but
they would all point to one location, instead of two as the do now, eg in
Tables:

6.  Security Considerations

   The security issues associated with this work are discussed in
   [IDNA2008-rationale
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#ref-IDNA2008-rationale>]
and [IDNA2008-protocol
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#ref-IDNA2008-protocol>].


Mark


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:44, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> turns out that IETF procedures require security considerations for all
> RFCs.
> v
>
> NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
> Vint Cerf
> Google
> 1818 Library Street, Suite 400
> Reston, VA 20190
> 202-370-5637
> vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 9:08 PM, Mark Davis wrote:
>
> Security ConsiderationsD4. Security Considerations R12.
> Security Considerations
>
> I think it is a really bad idea to split the Security Considerations
> between Defs and Rationale. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason
> for the split. They should all be in one place, preferably in Protocol,
> since that is the core document.
>
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081120/47708108/attachment.htm