I want to be clear that I don't think this is about credit. My concern is purely about accurately reflecting the level of confidence one should have in this mechanism.
-Ekr On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:43 PM Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> wrote: > This is just a registration with IANA more than anything else; this > required almost no work compared to the many people and many years spent > on TLS. I don't believe marking this as an update implies any flaw in > TLS, or any presumption that this is somehow its equal in terms of > effort. This isn't a competition, it's just logically part of the same > ecosystem. > > If we start thinking about one document referencing or updating another > as somehow being presumptuous or implying that we're trying to retcon > the other authors work I don't see the culture of the IETF ever becoming > a very inviting one. Similarly, if we decide that every document that > updates another document has to be its equal in terms of effort, no > documents will ever get updates until they are ready to be entirely > replaced. Lots of documents receive small updates, this is no different. > > Would it make a difference if I added a section thanking the TLS authors > for their work and for including bits like EKM that make keying material > possible? I'd be happy to include such a section if it would make people > feel better about it. > > > —Sam > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, at 23:32, Rob Sayre wrote: > > Makes sense a goal—I think the objection is more that updating 8446 on > > paper here is presumptuous, since that document took orders of > > magnitude more work. > > > > That should not detract from the work in this new draft, but hopefully > > my message at least makes the disagreement more clear. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
