On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:48 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2026, Watson Ladd wrote: > > [ speaking as (tired) individual only ] > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2026, 12:58 PM Andrei Popov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > * What does an RFC do here? > > This has been brought up on the thread multiple times. SW vendors tend to > > ship support for RFCs, not IANA code points or individual I-Ds. > > > > Are you saying that this applies to you and you cannot ship support absent > > an RFC? It seems odd to talk about the reluctance of third parties to > > implement something > > in talking about the interest you have in the draft. > > This argument was one of the blockers for the proposed > draft-pwouters-crypto-current-practices, and I was squarely on the side of > "A code point must be good enough for everyone". But that was not > the consensus unfortunately.
I don't understand why failure to achieve a far more wide reaching IETF consensus affects what the TLS WG should do, particularly as the TLS WG made the registry changes to achieve what that draft wanted. Sincerely, Watson > > While we at IETF might have strong opinions that an RFC is not needed > over a code point, we don't exist in a vaccum, and this position was > unfortunately unsustainable in the real world. > > Additionally, my proposal tried to set equal rules for all crypto > algorithms BEFORE we had too many RFCs done. Now that half the RFCs > are published, it becomes even harder to tell those we don't yet have > one that we decided that as of now, no one need one. > > It turns out the enemy was once again, ourselves :P > > Paul -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
