> I am happy to cut down the Motivations to 'nothing', I thought I was > obligated to say 'something'
Saying 'nothing' in the draft is advocacy too, because it says something to publish an RFC in the first place. My main fear here is that people would start making up their own rationalizations for the existence of this RFC-to-be. After all, "the TLS WG would have published it for *some* reason", most likely because "it's just a good idea in general". The point of saying something is to be explicit about what our motivations are; to advocate for its use only under certain conditions rather than broadly. Put plainly: - If we think the only reason for deploying this is CNSA 2.0 and alike, we should say so. - If we think there are other good reasons with limited scope, we should say so. - If we think others are safer with hybrids, we should say so. I believe this explicitness is the preferable way to limit advocacy, not saying less. -- TBB P.S. Of course, resolving these 'If's is the point of much discussion on this list.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
