On Thursday, March 31, 2016 09:19:37 pm Sean Turner wrote: > (there’s probably some other options like an adding an IESG note/new section > that says “this goes to historic when TLS 1.3 is published, but I think the > above three options seem more realistic.)
What looks simplest to me, would be to publish initially as experimental, then have the TLS 1.3 specification obsolete it and contain language that explicitly changes its status to historic without additional action. Consensus to change status would be considered a part of the required consensus to publish TLS 1.3 as an RFC. The current TLS 1.3 draft already handwaves an informational RFC to standards track (RFC5289: ECC AES GCM), so adding another handwave to change another RFC's status like this seems to make the most sense. Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
