On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:43 AM Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> As I understand it, the purpose of this draft is to specify an > interoperable key exchange mechanism that we can deploy. The draft already > has code points allocated to it, and they exist in the registry > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-8>, > so I wonder: what is the point of adopting this draft when the important > work is already done? If it’s that some folks won’t implement it until > there’s an RFC number assigned to it, well, that’s pretty silly. > It is silly. But the nature of the issue is that people that do implement it can put "RFC NNNN support" on their comparison checklists. So, it's more effective than the code points, especially if we want to encourage smaller implementations to implement. > I support adoption if it helps this work get implemented more broadly, but > I think it’s worth asking whether or not this is a good use of an already > busy working group’s time. > I think it will help the work get implemented more broadly, so I support adoption. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
