On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 8:18 PM Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > I think there is a non-technical dispute here. A NIST doc should be a perfectly stable reference. Simon Josefsson wrote: > I support adoption of the draft, and believe SLH-DSA in TLS would be > useful and that a stable reference in the form of an RFC would be good. That seems like the recurring dispute. Sorry to be reductive, but it mostly just means "I want my thing to be an RFC". Understandable, but we want to avoid being an uncredible spec mill. I think the actual answer is to just remove the "should not be cited" text from the I-Ds, but that's not a matter only for the TLS WG. That way, you can publish anything with a stable reference but not with IETF consensus. So, in that context, no, I don't support adoption here. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
