You are welcome to surface a conversation that has happened on a list such as UTA with the TLS list.
Having the same conversation at the same time on multiple lists can be challenging, and or spammy depending on how many IETF lists you have subscribed to (I am subscribed to more than I should be). I think you've done the right thing by raising it on one list at a time, but there is no fixed rule about this AFAIK (please chime in here if I am mistaken). I have often surfaced conversations happening on a WG list to other WGs that are impacted, for example I recently forwarded this thread to OAUTH and COSE, related to Verifiable Credential media types: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/ZGjO7RGWtGi2_NtD_O_wkAUzFQg/ OS On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 12:03 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > On 20/02/2024 17:40, Andrea Vesco wrote: > > Hi Stephen, before contacting UTA WG we have shared the I-D with TLS WG > > chairs, and they explained that typically defining a new credential type > > is not something that has been of interest to the TLS WG. > > Interesting. Not sure I'd agree with that (not that > it matters) but guess we'll see. > > S. > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > Uta@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta > -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
