On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 5:17 AM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Now, sometimes, as in this case, we get people who want to use an > algorithm ask the TLS WG to publish an RFC because they don't want to > use the code point without an RFC. However, the reason these documents > aren't being published as RFCs is because there's not consensus that > have consensus promote their use, so I don't think publishing them as > an RFC so that others can more readily use them is a very strong > argument. If people find it somewhat harder to use algorithms for > which there isn't consensus why is that bad? > > > I think you are mixing two things. > > Is there consensus that that document accurately captures the details for > using the algorithm in an interoperable manner? If so, then I believe that > the document should move forward so that the people that want to use that > algorithm can do so. > > Is there consensus that the TLS WG wants to promote the use of the > algorithm? If so, then I believe that document and the IANA registry > should reflect that consensus. The IANA registry will say Recommended=Y. > Of course that will change over time because algorithms age. > I am of course aware of this distinction, but I don't think it really matters much in this context. While it's true that Recommended=Y is intended to indicate a judgement by the TLS WG, I think it's clear that many regard the publication of an RFC by the TLS WG as a form of endorsement, even when Recommended=N [0]. In fact, this is precisely why the publication of some documents has become so controversial. Taking a step back, it seems to me that the people who are opposed to publication of this document are of the opinion that people shouldn't use the algorithms it describes. The argument you are advancing here is that the IETF should publish this document because it enables others (in this case IEEE) to use these algorithms, but whether that's a good thing or not is precisely the point of contention! > With that said, if we want to make a shift like that contemplated > draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email, such that even > documents which the WG does feel positively about and otherwise could > have gotten consensus to publish as RFCs are just I-Dsor emails, then > we perhaps do in fact need some permanent definition of the algorithm, > but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > > > I addressed this above. Internet-Drafts are a work in progress. > The TLS WG and the IETF have already determined that the I-Ds are an acceptable reference for code point definitions. -Ekr [0] I don't think this position is entirely unreasonable given that the documents state on the face of them that they "represent[s] the consensus of the IETF community."
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
