Hiya,
On 04/04/2026 17:49, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
I have no objections to pursuing an area-wide position, but I do think that the order in which you're tackling these is suboptimal. The sensible think it seems is to first reach consensus on the desired language in the context of the current TLS WG draft, and only **then** look to generalise it to an area-wide position.
I've no strong opinion as to ordering, other than noting that there is some implicit ordering of activities needed, if an area-wide BCP is be referenced by protocol-specific RFCs such as the draft named in the subject line. I also think finding an area-wide consensus on the general question is the only way to avoid repeated dramas to use David's term. I do agree it might help move matters along though if the TLS WG reached consensus that deploying hybrids is the BCP for the present. I don't think we've established that, have we? Have we even been asked the question? Cheers, S.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
