This is right. I don’t think it needs to be more difficult. thanks, Rob
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 15:47 Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > I think the current working group consensus for the policy of the > recommended column is reflected in the following statement: > > Setting a value to "Y" or "D" in the "Recommended" column requires IETF > Standards Action [RFC8126 <#m_962365536413309078_RFC8126>]. Any state > transition to or from a "Y" or "D" value requires IESG Approval." > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 12:49 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz= > 40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> It is not hard to see that e.g., NULL encryption violates the properties. >> >> >> >> Sure. And for years we thought MD5 met the properties, until it didn’t. >> And now, RSA meets the properties, until it doesn’t. >> >> >> >> The alternative is that someone afterwards need to write a standards >> track draft and progress that through IETF. As an author of such a draft I >> would rather not have do that work. I would much rather help evaluating if >> an item violates the properties before registration. >> >> >> >> That’s better than trusting security to a handful of people. I mean, if >> you’re making a judgement that global security needs to move away from an >> algorithm, having to get a document through standards track seems a very >> small price to pay. >> >> >> >> I don’t want that job, and I’d quit if the TLS registries were changed >> that way. I don’t think it’s likely. >> > _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
