Hi Filippo,Thank you for clarifying your concerns. I hope Simon has answered some of your concerns, else I am happy to look into them further. My purpose of writing this email, however, is different, namely the following:
On 15.04.26 14:43, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
There's a reason the immediate chorus of "hell no" came from (most of) the implementers.
In case you missed it, please note that Microsoft folks have provided an attestation for implementation [0].
Independent of that, that's not my read of this subthread. I don't see anyone other than David A to be in such strong position of "hell no." ISTM that David B and others (including your explicit mention of "plan" [1]) were just sharing their "plans," no?
But I also don't believe in the IETF being a gatekeeper for implementing/deploying things, so I have no opinions on what does and doesn't become an RFC.
Do I understand correctly that despite your concerns, you are not opposed to adoption?
Best, -Usama [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/eoeUL_BoClXPyro2AEe7zNwuiJo/ [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ejY1J4eu3mbwU0nfd-snznZ0Sxs/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
