On Jun 27, 2016 7:38 AM, "Sean Turner" <[email protected]> wrote: > > All, > > draft-ietf-tls-pwd [0] has been parked [1] by the WG chairs since late 2013. It was parked by the WG chairs because there was no consensus to move the document forward during WGLC [2][3]. However, circumstances have changed namely the publication of Dragonfly Key Exchange RFC [4] and the proposed changes to the IANA registration rules for algorithm code points. In light of these two developments, the chairs want to revisit this decision and would like to know before 12 July if the WG wants to progress draft-ietf-pwd as a WG item to obtain algorithm code points under the new rules [5].
Things have also changed in that JPAKE2 has a security proof IIUC. While the CFRG PAKE process has slowed, there are still a number of competing options here and I don't think "all of the above" is the right answer. > > Note that if the WG decides not to progress the draft the author will be free to pursue other publication paths, e.g., through the AD or the ISE. > > Thanks, > > J&S > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-pwd/ > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6174/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aYIXwO8l4K8XdvUoW9ysHT8WzA0 > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Fep2-E7xQX7OQKzfxOoFInVFtm4 > [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7664/ > [5] Obviously, the draft needs to be revised in light of [3]. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
