2025-07-15 15:32 GMT+02:00 Salz, Rich <[email protected]>:
> If specification required means "get an RFC", why do we have it
> instead of standards action?
> There are some folks who take that sentence in the I-D boilerplate with as
> much importance as other content in a draft. There are some who don’t.
> Sometimes there’s an external document. In this case, maybe pointing to the
> FIPS document suffices; I don’t know.
"Should an I-D-assigned codepoint be enough for folks or is the boilerplate too
scary" is an interesting conversation to have, but I don't see how it is
relevant to the adoption of this document, where the alternative is indeed to
email [email protected] requesting TLS SignatureScheme codepoints with Recommended
= N, Reference = FIPS 205, and Comment = For TLS 1.3 or later (per
draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen).
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
