Seeing no objections I’ll get this process underway. spt
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 20:10, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > Note that Russ pointed out during the meeting that even though we can use > this process a new RFC # will be minted at the end of the process. > > spt > >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:36, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: >> >> This email addresses the "Uplifting” bullet on slide 6 of the chair slides >> (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-tls-wg-chair-slides-00.pdf); >> this is entirely procedural (i.e., there’s really no technical ). >> >> The cipher suite registry's new "WG recommended” column's “Y" values are >> being populated with cipher suites that are on standards track. The notable >> exceptions are the EC-based AES-GCM ciphers defined in RFC 5289, which is an >> informational RFC. This point is buried in an earlier version of >> draft-ietf-tls-tls13 and now in the soon to be >> draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates (was >> draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates); the complete list of the pet-TLS 1.3 >> suites can be found here: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01#section-6. >> >> We can uplift RFC 5289 to PS from Informational with what essentially >> amounts to an IETF LC; we don't need a new draft (there's no errata). We >> want to know if there are any objections to starting this process please >> post a message to the list by November 21st if you object (and why). >> >> Please note the following: >> >> - This "action" is similar to what we're doing with 4492bis (it too is >> being moved to standards track) it's just that we can use this other process. >> >> - RFC 7525, which was published through the UTA WG and is a BCP btw, already >> 2119-RECOMMENDs the ciphers. >> >> - RFC 7540 (aka HTTP/2) MUSTs one of the RFC 5289 cipher suites. >> >> spt > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
