I share Achim's concerns. But I believe the explanations will turn out mostly useless in the real world, as the "lawyers" of the industry are guaranteed to steer away from something "not recommended".
In one word: bad.
On 9/29/20, 12:31, "TLS on behalf of Achim Kraus" <tls-boun...@ietf.org on
behalf of achimkr...@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi list,
I'm still worrying about the "recommended" and the (mis-)interpretation
of that. I'm fine with the explanation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Note
If an item is not marked as "Recommended", it does not
necessarily mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that
the item either has not been through the IETF consensus process,
has limited applicability, or is intended only for specific use
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------
but, I feel uncomfortable considering too many decision makers will not
read that details. Though the "recommendation" is changing over the
time, I would feel more comfortable, if the N would be amended by the
Y-period.
e.g. N (was Y 2001-2015)
FMPOV, if someone reads that, it may explain, that the N is a recent one
and some use-case will still need some time to adapt for the new
recommendations.
best regards
Achim Kraus
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
