On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 02:55:41PM -1000, Richard Barnes 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. > > ---------- 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
There are also some other registeries besides crypto algorithms where adoption would likely be waste of time: - TLS Exporter Labels - TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels - TLS Certificate Types - TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs - TLS Certificate Compression Algorithm IDs (The last one of has odd-looking registration policy, since there are seemingly no privileged values and >10k free values.) Then there are some extensions and flags that are almost-trivial and would be waste of time (for both the WG and authors) to adopt. Altough the current registry seems to only have 4 codepoints that are not RFC(-to-be). -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
