>> I don't think non-standardized algorithms should be adopted by the
>> WG. Even for just assigning a number, a good first step would be CFRG.
> Well, getting adopted by the WG isn't a requirement for those to wind up
> with a number... There is expert review process as well.
The requirements for assigning a number are defined in RFC 5226 (section 3).
The TLS registries are "designated expert" and Yoav Nir, Nick Sullivan, and I
are the current designees. The structure (columns) of the registries are
defined in RFC 8447 (and its predecessors), and are being updated in
draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis [1]
The number space for ciphers is not small. Multi-party experimentation is
probably desirable, which makes using the "private use" space, where possible,
not appropriate. I would be inclined to approve any algorithm that appears to
be in NISTs plans. But two DE's have to approve.
Hope this helps.
/r$
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis/
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
