I would like to see this work adopted by the working group. I think the language issues can be addressed after adoption.
However, given the disagreements raised, I would also be okay if the adoption decision was postponed until after discussion in Vancouver. Jonathan On Thu., Feb. 13, 2020, 4:29 p.m. Martin Thomson, <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 06:00, Salz, Rich wrote: > > > I think the draft would be ok to adopt if we don't finish > > it until the outcome from the NIST competition is known. > > Otherwise I would be against adoption. > > > > I think I agree with this, but am not sure. Can we have this on the > > agenda for Vancouver? > > That's a good idea. Because I'm fairly sure that I disagree. > > This work might form the basis of experiments. If the competition result > is known, we might instead want to start the process of defining key > exchange with a single algorithm rather than concern ourselves with > compositions. Having the document in place so that we can define > experiments with a degree of surety with respect to their risks is best. > > In any case, we should adopt this work. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
