I would like to see Deirdre’s request satisfied, and a full number assigned.
Regards, Uri > On Mar 7, 2024, at 09:19, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside the Laboratory. > Back to the topic at hand. I think it'd very bad if we'd have a codepoint for > pure ML-KEM before we have a codepoint for an ML-KEM hybrid. Process wise, I > think that's up to the designated experts of the IANA registry. > > Currently the TLS designated experts really only look at the request itself, > without larger context: is the ALPN valid, is the requested protocol number > available, is the documentation freely available and so on. Section 15 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis/ changes that a > bit. > > So if Deirdre requests a code point right now, we’d probably reject it but > that could be appealed somehow. Once the RFC is out, we could then see if > there’s WG consensus or if it’s still a work-in-progress, and assign full > number or provisional or tell her to use the private range. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
