This is exactly how I think about it. spt
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:11, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > It seems that CCM_8 falls in the “limited applicability” bucket. However, > there’s nothing wrong with IoT specs requiring these ciphers in their TLS > profiles. > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:42 AM > To: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> > Cc: <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [TLS] Should CCM_8 CSs be Recommended? > > The current editor's copy of the draft has the following text about the > recommended column: > > The instructions in this document add a recommended column to many of the TLS > registries to indicate parameters that are generally recommended for > implementations to support. Adding a recommended parameter to a registry or > updating a parameter to recommended status requires standards action. Not all > parameters defined in standards track documents need to be marked as > recommended. > > If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean that it > is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not been through the > IETF consensus process or the item has limited applicability to specific > cases. > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > ➢ We’re recommending that these five suites be dropped from the recommended > list. Please let us know what you think. > > > Does “recommended” mean for general use, in the public Internet? Or is it “I > know it when I see it” kind of thing? > > Either way, I support un-recommending them > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
