I support adoption. Additionally, I do not support any argument that implies that path 1 is wrong because path 2 exists.
Sometimes there are useful things to say about the context, security considerations, background, caveats, etc etc etc that get lost with just a codepoint registration. The draft should be judged on its merits and whether the information it does or will contain is useful in the form of an RFC. As several of the people opposing adoption point out, there are important considerations to be aware of before trying this. I think that's a strong argument that an RFC is needed. -Tim From: Salz, Rich <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 12:34 PM To: Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: [TLS] Re: Second WG Adoption Call for Use of SLH-DSA in TLS 1.3 I am saying the scary "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 'work in progress.'" sentence in the I-D boilerplate is not relevant to this conversation, because I see two options, neither of which ultimately involves referencing an I-D: 1. adopt this document and publish an RFC; 2. request TLS SignatureScheme codepoints with Reference = FIPS 205. Thank you for explaining
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
