Hi Nadim, > If Cisco or Red Hat or whoever has big customers, or if some government passes a regulation, that asks for TLS 1.3 to incorporate Triple-DES as its symmetric cipher, then should the IETF be passing drafts that accommodate this?
Luckily, what you're describing here is a completely different thing. On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 7:18 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:04 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 06:48:54AM +0100, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: >> > If the code points already exist then why can’t we just follow Richard >> Barnes’ proposal: >> >> Because there was a concensus call on adoption, and the WG chairs called >> the consensus as being in favor of adoption. There have been appeals, >> and the appeals did not succeed (I'm not inviting a sub-thread about >> that, just stating the current state of play). >> >> I argued against adoption. But given that it was adopted, publication >> can't be held up by a desire for a different outcome to the adoption >> call. >> > > As a matter of process, this is simply untrue. WGs need consensus for the > document at the time of publication, notwithstanding the outcome of the > adoption call. The chairs have some power to structure the argument > to rule out repeated discussion of questions that have been asked and > answered, but at the end of the day, documents need consensus to proceed. > > -Ekr > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
