> 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".
Ah, I missed that part, thanks! OK good, we may have reversed engineered a thing from 20 years ago :D On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 4:53 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
