> On Aug 18, 2019, at 9:47 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > <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).
Makes sense, so we added new public documents now ;-) Just one question, do implementations count as the ‘public specification’? For instance, something like the crypto libraries which support the algorithms with full documentation describing 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ø This is one example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8428.txt > <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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls Regards, Paul Yang
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
