> On Nov 24, 2025, at 08:55, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I’m not opposed to publication, especially since we are publishing the hybrid > key exchange document. I would like to see this draft say something like > “these algorithms are not recommended for general use” or similar words to > explain and highlight that “Recommended N” is their entry. It could go as a > single paragraph at the start of Section 5. > > If we are publishing this as an RFC because we believe “the Industry” needs > an RFC, we need to make it clear what THIS RFC says.
I am hearing a lot of this, So if this is the case, why are we suggesting this document get published from the TLS working group? There already exists a path to publishing an RFC with Recommended N, such as has been done for https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8998.html Section 4 has it right there, along with its IANA values. “The Industry” can have an RFC just as it has one when it needs to implement what is 8998 for “reasons”. (Or should we charter up Limited Additional Algorithms For TLS for such LAAFTy goals?) > _______________________________________________ > 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]
