Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> writes: >> but getting RFCs published helps and some may >> have processes in place that would need to be changed to allow use of >> this if there is no RFC available. >> > > I agree that this is generally true, but again it would be helpful to hear > specifically from people for whom RFC publication would make a difference.
Didn't my statement count? What kind of entity are you thinking of here? In my experience, the kind of entitites that have a preference to only use widely standardized and implemented protocols are the entitites that passively follow others, and they aren't likely to chime in and voice their opinion at earlier phases. Unless I misunderstand what kind of entity you are looking for, I think a request to hear from such entitites is not reasonable at earlier phases of standardization, and cannot be expected. So it is like asking for something that doesn't exist, and then saying that nobody replied so there is no interest. As a parallel, the crypto community standardized Rijndael so that others can refer to it as AES today. I don't think many entities that demand AES today would have cared to voice any opinion for or against Rijndael back in the days. But we are all happy to be able to refer to AES as a standard now, just like we can for TLS 1.3, EdDSA, Argon2 and other crypto primitives. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
