On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:32 AM Paul Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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 > > 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... > I do not think so, no. -Ekr > > 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 > > > > Regards, > > Paul Yang > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
