Thanks! (And to David and Benjamin as well; I can see the daylight between those cases now.)
Mike On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 2:14 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
