The intent of the "Specification Required" requirement for registration is that sufficient public information be available to allow an interoperable implementation. Specifically, the text says:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.6 For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible. This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to allow interoperable implementations. I don't think that a for-pay specification meets that threshold, though I'm not aware of any IETF-wide policy on that (although I may just have missed it). In the absence of that, it would as stated above, be on the Expert to determine the standard. -Ekr On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ø This is one example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8428.txt > > > > Thank you. > > > > That is a bit different since RNC isn’t needed to implement the RFC, and a > web search for “relaxng” finds thousands of references. The SM2, etc., > situation is different because you cannot implement the cipher without the > definition of it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
