TLS-LTS has now been rejected as an independent-track submission, the justification being -frozen. So the process for this draft was as follows:
- I first posted it in 2016, and was asked to delay publication as an RFC until TLS 1.3 was finished, so as not to interfere with the 1.3 process. - After waiting some years for TLS 1.3 as requested, I proposed it again, and it was shut down with the excuse "we've got TLS 1.3 now, we can't have -lts, put it through the independent track". - So I put it through the independent track, which involved being asked to clear a series of seemingly arbitrary hurdles that I don't think any other TLS RFC has ever had to clear, and which would probably have prevented half the TLS RFCs from being published had they been applied to them. - Finally, it's now been rejected on the basis that -frozen doesn't permit it, even though in the earlier discussion about this it was stated that -frozen doesn't apply to -lts. So it seems the entire nine-year process, with its endless stalling and delays, has been designed to railroad -lts into a position where it can never be published, and where there was never any chance of it being published from the outset. I've followed all the rules and steps as requested (well, as best I could anyway). However the rules were then changed at each step to ensure it wouldn't be published, no matter what steps I followed. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
