We really don't want to restart the old debate. That's why we don't target standardization, but registration of code points only. Maybe you got this wrong.
RFC8447 adds a RECOMMENDED column to TLS Registries which allows for differentiating between entries explicitly recommended by an RFC and other entries based on a specification document only. We decided to choose the latter approach to register code points based on this I-D. I wonder what's the purpose of this distinction if it is not offering a possibility for registering code points without full working group consensus. Leonie -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Viktor Dukhovni Gesendet: Sonntag, 2. September 2018 19:18 An: tls@ietf.org Betreff: Re: [TLS] WG: New Version Notification for draft-bruckert-brainpool-for-tls13-00.txt On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 04:12:31PM +0200, Hanno Böck wrote: > > We submitted an Internet Draft defining the usage of the Brainpool > > Curves for TLS 1.3. > > I believe it's not desirable to have a maximally large number of > algorithms specified for TLS. To the contrary, I believe it'd be good > to keep things as simple as possible and limit choices if there's no > good reason for them. Agreed. -- Viktor. _______________________________________________ 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
