Hi John, On 24.02.26 08:53, John Mattsson wrote:
>I don't understand why the SDOs need this beyond what's in IANA.Maybe TLS WG should send an LS and ask them. AFAIK, 3GPP, GSMA, ETSI, O-RAN Alliance, ISO/IEC, IEEE, and the Broadband Forum all require RFCs for normative references. The TLS WG has already received LSs from ETSI and GSMA requesting PQC RFCs, and 3GPP is currently considering sending a LS to TLS WG requesting PQC RFCs as well.
My understanding is that Sec. 3 [0] is not prohibiting the RFCs. In my reading, it is only proposing to limit the cases to only three in which we publish the RFCs, no?
Do you recall whether there was any Liaison Statement from ETSI and GSMA which requested RFC outside of the three cases mentioned in [0]? Do you know the same about planned Liaison Statement from 3GPP?
Thanks, -Usama[0] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.html#section-3-3
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
