On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 1:46 PM Deirdre Connolly <durumcrustu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those guidelines may be useful to us, thanks for the link. > > I want to be clear that the output of the FATT is not 'design' as > described in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/, > as the FATT may include experts that do not participate in the working > group generally , but closer to security review and recommendations of what > kind of analysis (if any) would help confirm that the proven formal > security properties of TLS 1.3 remain standing. Just as external > researchers looked at drafts of TLS 1.3 and did analyses of them, which > were taken into account for future drafts of the document (or not!), so > would the FATT be providing input, but not necessarily 'design'. > I think you're splitting hairs here a bit. The term "design" is just what RFC 2418 uses. If the input from such a group can influence the protocol, it seems to match the exact text from the RFC: "formal set of expert volunteers". thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
