On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 5:47 PM Deirdre Connolly <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If others agree that this is a good policy, then I think we should enact > i> t with retroactive effect, which is to say: > > > 1. Make ECHDE/MLKEM Recommended=Y (as also suggested by > Bas's draft). > > 2. Decline to publish draft-ietf-tls-mlkem > > Why not claw back -ecdhe-mlkem? > That would be another alternative, but I think it should be Recommended=Y and that requires an RFC at Standards Track. -Ekr > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 8:03 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I strongly support this draft. One of the main reasons for relaxing the >> registration rules and introducing the Recommended column was to >> avoid spending time debating the merits of new algorithms that everyone >> knew weren't going to be standardized, and yet a huge fraction of the >> mail on the list over the past few months is doing precisely that. >> >> The obvious objection to this draft is that there might be some work >> required to refine how an algorithm is used and that an I-D might not be >> enough for that. I have two responses to that: >> >> - Recent history does not seem to indicate that is the case. We're >> busily debating parts of the specification that have no impact on >> the wire format. >> - If an algorithm isn't important enough to have Recommended=Y, >> then it's not worth WG time to refine it. >> >> If others agree that this is a good policy, then I think we should enact >> it with retroactive effect, which is to say: >> >> 1. Make ECHDE/MLKEM Recommended=Y (as also suggested by >> Bas's draft). >> 2. Decline to publish draft-ietf-tls-mlkem >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 4:56 PM Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi TLS folks, >>> >>> Those who have worked with me know that I hate doing unnecessary work. >>> It occurred to me that the TLS WG has been doing a lot of unnecessary work >>> on drafts that just register crypto algorithms. This draft proposes that >>> we shouldn't do that. >>> >>> Submitted for your consideration, >>> --Richard >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: <[email protected]> >>> Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:53 PM >>> Subject: New Version Notification for >>> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt >>> To: Richard Barnes <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> A new version of Internet-Draft >>> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt has been >>> successfully >>> submitted by Richard Barnes and posted to the >>> IETF repository. >>> >>> Name: draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email >>> Revision: 00 >>> Title: Stop Doing Cryptographic Algorithm Drafts when Email to IANA >>> is All You Need >>> Date: 2026-02-24 >>> Group: Individual Submission >>> Pages: 5 >>> URL: >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt >>> Status: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email/ >>> HTML: >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.html >>> HTMLized: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email >>> >>> >>> Abstract: >>> >>> People keep pitching drafts to the TLS Working Group where the only >>> thing the draft does is register a code point for a cryptographic >>> algorithm. Stop doing that. It's unnecessary. Write an email to >>> IANA instead. >>> >>> >>> >>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
