Hi Russ, > On Dec 19, 2019, at 10:08 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > Alissa: > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Building on a point Barry made, I think it would be useful to distinguish in >> the document whether this spec is experimental because we are waiting for >> quantum computers to materialize, or whether it is experimental because >> current >> implementors want to gain more experience with it before standardization. >> That >> way if it does come back at some future point on the standards track the >> context for why it was experimental in the first place will be there. > > There was a lot of discussion in the TLS WG, and several implementors wanted > to gain more experience with the specification before producing a > standards-track RFC. I am not sure that really helps if this document comes > back in the future.
I’m quite sure that it would, given that most of the time when the IESG reviews a document that is being promoted from experimental to standards track there is some discussion about why that is happening. The more that can be done to explain the context for the original classification, the better, because then readers do not have to guess. Asking future reviewers to re-read the TLS mailing list from X number of years ago is suboptimal compared to having one sentence in the document that explains this. As currently written, I think people could conclude that this document is experimental because large-scale quantum computers do not yet exist. Best, Alissa > >> Please respond to the Gen-ART reviewer. > > I have done so. > > Russ > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
