+1. Especially when some of those individuals represent vendors who are committed to this solution and would like to see a standard in this space. Thanks, Yaron From: Tim Hudson <tjh=40openssl....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Sunday, 20 July 2025 at 4:26
To: Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com>
Cc: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: [TLS] Re: Second WG Adoption Call for Use of SLH-DSA in TLS 1.3 I support adoption of the draft with or without an applicability statement. I do not see merit (or even consistency) in the arguments raised about prioritisation or that code points can simply be registered. I also see the arguments that certain individuals don't see a need for this as not at all compelling given that there are more than enough individuals that have voiced a need or desire. Not seeing a need yourself should not act as a blocker where others see a need. The reasons so far seem to distil down to a dislike for the algorithm or dislike for having a choice and concerns that publishing an RFC will encourage adoption. That is the point - there are enough individuals that want to do this and they should have a stable interoperable way to do it. |
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
