On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:57 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 11:26 AM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If the IETF does not publish such document in a way that other SDOs can >> cite them, then some other group will fill that void. We know that the >> IEEE needs a document to reference. I believe 3GPP and ITU-T are in the >> same situation. In my view, another body filling that void would be bad >> for the IETF. Maybe that is the point where we disagree, >> > > Perhaps. Consider the following hypothetical. Suppose that there was a > draft > that specified a ROT13-based AEAD, that it clearly captures the details in > an > interoperable manner, and that for some reason some other SDOs wanted to > publish documents that relied on that. Do you think the IETF should publish > that document? > I mean, I did want to publish that as an April 1st RFC, but that's not the point. ;-) I'm not Russ, but no the IETF obviously should not publish that document, April 1st aside. However, if other SDOs *really* wanted to use that, they *should* give us that feedback. And if they did, I think the TLS WG would probably be able to manage simply telling them they are wrong for wanting ROT13, rather than trying to quibble over whether the SDOs can cite a draft instead. And I don't think the TLS WG would have to then be terribly worried about losing legitimacy to a newly formed ROTLS13 Standards Consortium. That is... not quite what's going on here. David
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
