If specification required means "get an RFC", why do we have it instead of standards action?
I think Fillipo is correct: there's no need to have a draft for a signature algorithm, just point to the NIST doc describing it here. On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 8:12 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > On the one hand, I like Filippo’s arguments [1]. On the other hand, I > appreciate the reluctance of other entities wanting an RFC, at least while > the Internet Draft boilerplate says “It is inappropriate to use > Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ‘work in > progress.’" So while I like the email, I must disagree with it. > > > > I support adoption assuming we’ll say “Recommended =N” in the IANA > considerations, and have accurate wording about the concerns about general > deployment. > > > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ol63d5cKVvAXbfD5XKEc_rDm2N4/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
