Hi Nick,Thanks very much for sharing your insights, and all the detailed answers and the links. I'll go through all the links and once done, I'll work with you to propose Errata.
I do believe it is cool work and the difficulty to find open-source and full implementations /may/ have been a hindrance for its usage. We are confident that we can make good use of your work.
On 12.03.26 04:36, Nick Sullivan wrote:
On the terminology nits ("EA" vs "Exported Authenticator" vs
"Authenticator" capitalization differences, or "exporter value" vs
"exported value"): those are editorial inconsistencies and an
oversight on my part as author, not an attempt to distinguish
different protocol objects.
Since it's not an individual draft and rather an RFC, I don't think it's /your/ oversight. I mean it's equally on us -- the WG members -- that we didn't catch it during WGLC etc.
--- Sean: Thanks for taking the time to search for the implementations.Ekr, Sean: My request was not necessarily on having implementations within text in RFC, but maybe as "additional resources" in datatracker. After some search, the four developers gave up on search and then had to build their own. So the two implementations were effectively useless to us.
My general point was: if those who want to use it can't find it, then what's the benefit of those two implementations? We do want folks to use what we standardize, don't we?
Please see whatever you can do in your process to make it easier for those who want to use it.
--- Best regards, -Usama
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
