Hi John, I'm confused. Are you saying that external SDOs aren't able to use a TLS ciphersuite unless the TLS WG publishes an RFC on it, even if there's a registered IANA code point? Even if that's the case, it seems like a them problem and not an us problem. Like, get out of your own way, man.
If they need Recommended=Y, that's a different question, and one that the draft already accommodates. Clearly WG action is required for that. --Richard On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:46 AM John Mattsson <john.mattsson= [email protected]> wrote: > Completely agree that this type of policy should be in the charter and not > in a draft. > > I am against any changes in this direction until TLS WG has tried to > understand the needs of external SDOs using TLS and made sure that we can > improve (and sustain) the applicability and suitability of the TLS family > of protocols for use in emerging protocols and use cases. > > At IETF 125, I would like to discuss sending an LS to SDOs relying on TLS > asking them if this kind of major change would work for them and if not > explain why. > > John > > *From: *Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, 24 February 2026 at 11:11 > *To: *Felix Linker <[email protected]> > *Cc: * > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[TLS] Re: New Version Notification for > draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt > > Yes, true! > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > On 24 Feb 2026, at 10:25 AM, Felix Linker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn't the charter define what can and cannot > be adopted? Adding 1-2 sentences to the charter paragraph starting with > "The third goal..." could have the same effect as this document, but be one > document less. > > Best, > Felix > > Am Di., 24. Feb. 2026 um 01:56 Uhr schrieb Richard Barnes <[email protected]>: > > Hi TLS folks, > > Those who have worked with me know that I hate doing unnecessary work. It > occurred to me that the TLS WG has been doing a lot of unnecessary work on > drafts that just register crypto algorithms. This draft proposes that we > shouldn't do that. > > Submitted for your consideration, > --Richard > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:53 PM > Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt > To: Richard Barnes <[email protected]> > > > A new version of Internet-Draft > draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt has been successfully > submitted by Richard Barnes and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email > Revision: 00 > Title: Stop Doing Cryptographic Algorithm Drafts when Email to IANA is > All You Need > Date: 2026-02-24 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 5 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email/ > HTML: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.html > HTMLized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email > > > Abstract: > > People keep pitching drafts to the TLS Working Group where the only > thing the draft does is register a code point for a cryptographic > algorithm. Stop doing that. It's unnecessary. Write an email to > IANA instead. > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
