I think there might have been a misunderstanding of my comment. I’m not questioning whether the discussed topics are related to updating RFC 9325—I agree that they provide important rationale for the changes. My point is that the abstract and introduction should clearly state that these topics (such as post-quantum cryptography and TLS 1.2 vulnerabilities) are part of the discussion in this draft. This would provide better guidance to the reader upfront, making it clear that the document does more than just introduce the update—it also explains the reasoning/consequences behind it.
Thank you for taking the time to explain. How about changing the last sentence in the abstract (and adding it to the Introduction) to read like this: “This document updates RFC9325 and discusses post-quantum cryptography and fixed weaknesses in TLS 1.2 as a rationale for that update.”
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
