On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:13 AM Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:47 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Eric > > > > One of the reasons we've published 8624 was to offer usage > recommendations, > > and especially this table: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8624#page-5 > > > > I believe I saw that one of the authors mentioned earlier they are > looking to > > do a -bis update, to update this table. > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer. And I suppose I could live with an Informational > RFC with a NOT RECOMMENDED entry in this table. > > It would be very strange to introduce a new algorithm as NOT RECOMMENDED. > The weakest I think we should introduce something is as MAY. >
The way that TLS has handled this is to have the registries have a column called Recommended and we just mark things Y or N. This is slightly different from RFC 2119 language. It's not that uncommon to have new stuff introduced with Recommended = N. In fact this is the likely outcome for the GOST cipher suites: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smyshlyaev-tls13-gost-suites/ -Ekr
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
