On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 08:29:26PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 10/07/17 17:57, Sean Turner wrote:
> > After some discussion amongst the chairs, we have decided to not shut
> > down the discussion about draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13.
>
> Ok, that's your call. But a bad call IMO.
IMO there's a trivial fix: make draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13 an
individual submission targeting Informational, and allow discussion on
the TLS WG without making it a WG item (meaning, too, that no WG
milestone should refer to it).
Given that the entire text of draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13 looks
like it's informational ("if you want key escrow with TLS 1.3, this is
how you might do it"), Informational looks right.
(BCP would not be appropriate, since on the cap-I Internet we would want
this deployed. And as to intranets, we don't care.)
An I-D specifying a protocol for doing key auditing for escrow purposes
could be Standards-Track, since it could be a protocol that many need to
interop with. But it wouldn't necessarily be a TLS WG item. And we
might still want it to be Informational (since we can specify protocols
that way as well).
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
