On Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 3:47 PM Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io> wrote:
> Before any technical or wording feedback, I am confused as to the nature > of this document. It does not seem to specify any protocol change or > mechanism, and it does not even focus on solutions to move the web further. > > Instead, it looks like a well edited blog post, presenting the perspective > of one segment of the industry. (The perspective seems to also lack > consensus, but I believe even that is secondary.) Note how as of > draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-05 there are no IANA considerations, no > security considerations, and no occurrences of any of the BCP 14 key words > (MUST, SHOULD, etc.). > > Is there precedent for publishing such a document as an RFC? > I was going to say RFC 691 but no, it recommends changes to the protocol (as well as being quite amusing). RFC 4074 comes close describing bad behavior without an explicit plea to stop doing it, but has a security considerations section. RFC 7021 describes the impact of a particular networking technique on applications. So there is precedent. Sincerely, Watson
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
