On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 7:00 AM Simon Josefsson <simon= [email protected]> wrote:
> Nick Sullivan <[email protected]> writes: > > > I support publication of this draft. > > > > Some of the feedback in the thread appears to treat this last call as if > > the document were intended to be published as an Internet Standard. It is > > not. The intended RFC status is Informational, and the IANA actions > > allocate code points for reference and interoperability/testing, not as a > > WG recommendation for TLS deployments (Recommended: N). > > There is another perspective: it is requested to publish this through > the TLS WG. The document doesn't have to be published by the TLS WG. > The other thing is that the document really isn't all that informative. It's not a bad document, it just doesn't say all that much. It could be in the NIST documents and the code points in IANA could point there. So, it sort of seems like it's looking for an RFC number and IETF approval more than anything else. Informational / Recommended: N is a level where I will stop arguing about it, but my opinion is negative and unchanged. So, I don't support this one. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
