On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 1:01 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek= [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > All of which can appear in the Internet-Draft registering the code point. -Ekr > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
