Hiya, On 21/02/2020 22:28, Watson Ladd wrote: > How do these characteristics affect the proposal in the draft?
I don't know. There are 17 of them. I'm not spending the time on this myself 'till there are a small number of winners. Speculating though, NIST often end up with a load of variants - if they do that again variant#1 of winner#1 might be usable with variant#2 of that same alg being no good at all. So I could see the definition of code points being wrong if done prematurely. (I remember the NULL algorithm parameter non-interop for RSA way back when and that was after the ASN.1 had existed for some time;-) I'd bet there'll be other issues discovered along the way as well. > And I > doubt given the relevant timelines we would finish before NIST is done > in any case. Great. In that case you must find my position fine, no? :-) All I'm asking is that we adopt with the explicit understanding that the WG don't request publication until the NIST winners are known. That is a weird ask, but I think justified in this case. The "Winner all right" call there can be left to the WG chairs - I'm not asking to wait for the final FIPS or whatever else NIST do to add another year or so to the endgame;-) Cheers, S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
