On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:13 AM Mike Shaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Apologies if this has been raised in the WGLC thread; I tried to catch up > there, but there is...a lot.) > > I'm curious how the list feels about similarities between the decision to > standardize SSLKEYLOGFILE and the choice ahead of the IETF regarding > standalone ML-KEM. > Well, it was a process mistake. The SSLKEYLOGFILE document should have gone to the ISE. It is an almost textbook case. But I think most people didn't want to spend time arguing about log files on the internet. https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc-independent-submissions/ And we do use this mechanism: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9150/ https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9189/ Those hit all of your bullet points. They don't get is this text: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG)." thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
