2025-07-15 17:47 GMT+02:00 Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com>: > "Should an I-D-assigned codepoint be enough for folks or is the boilerplate > too scary" is an interesting conversation to have, but I don't see how it is > relevant to the adoption of this document, where the alternative is indeed to > email i...@iana.org requesting TLS SignatureScheme codepoints with > Recommended = N, Reference = FIPS 205, and Comment = For TLS 1.3 or later > (per draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen). > > The authors have decades of experience in the IETF and want the TLS WG to > work on this doc. How is that not relevant? Is it going to get the full and > focused attention of most of the WG members? Nope; this isn’t TLS 1.3. So > why not?
I am not saying this document is not relevant to the WG, and I am certainly not trying to impugn the authors' stature. I am saying the scary "It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ‘work in progress.’" sentence in the I-D boilerplate is not relevant to *this* conversation, because I see two options, neither of which ultimately involves referencing an I-D: 1. adopt this document and publish an RFC; 2. request TLS SignatureScheme codepoints with Reference = FIPS 205.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
