S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 1. Mandatory-to-implement algorithms MUST have a stable public
>> specification and public documentation that has been well studied,
>> giving rise to significant confidence.
> 2. The IETF has always had a preference for unencumbered algorithms.
> The IETF Community would have to agree on what the first sentence means.
In
> my opinion, the second sentence shouldn't be too much of a problem.
However,
> it would be better not to lose sight of it or else it's gong to be
> half-a-solution.
The recently published rfc9563 references SM2, which is an ITU-T for fee
document, with an english translation which does seem to not load for me.
http://www.gmbz.org.cn/upload/2024-11-18/1731899501687024253.pdf
I would prefer that "Specification Required" included the words "available",
and for which the principles of open-stand.org applied.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
