If only because Stephen and I like to disagree, I want to make the point
that I fully agree with the last paragraph of Stephen's note below (I
expect I would agree with the rest if I had watched SAAG). The
ambiguity gives us more benefits than problems. Please don't mess with it.
Yours,
Joel
On 12/1/2024 3:46 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 01/12/2024 19:26, Salz, Rich wrote:
Why has saag has been discussing it
Because sometimes there isn't a formal specification, RFC 9106 for
example.
Because CFRG has published many algorithms, some they invented, some
not. Seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/cfrg/documents/
I think the above are true statements but not the reason why this is
being discussed on saag. As I understand it, those reasons are:
1. some IETF participants would prefer (new) RFCs only document
standards track things/things with IETF consensus
2. in many cases, we no longer need an RFC for IANA codepoints
for cryptographic options in protocols esp. those that only
need specification-required
3. some of the people with position #1 therefore conclude we
should/must not have RFCs for cases falling in #2
To be clear: I'm not a person with position #1 and don't agree
that #3 follows, nor is it always sensible.
Its a debate that's been ongoing for some time and has reasonable
arguments on various sides each of which has reasonable proponents.
And to respond to mcr's earlier point: I think we do benefit from
ambiguity in that it enables us to do the right thing in specific
cases. Losing that flexibility would be a negative and wouldn't be
worthwhile, esp if the fashion-pendulum wrt specification-required
for cryptographic codepoints swung back at some future point.
Cheers,
S.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
