[saag] Re: on derivative work rights statements in emails to Security Area mailing lists

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 1:58 AM Simon Josefsson <simon=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Nico Williams <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The specific disagreement I was referring to was about whether a WG
> > should adopt a given work item.  I think DJB thought that by not
> > adopting it the work wouldn't get done.
> >
> > My point to DJB is that because the necessary codepoints have been
> > assigned (and would have been even if the WG did not want it, short of
> > doing the work of closing the registry) the WG cannot block that work.
> > We only get to decide whether that work will be done "in the WG" or
> > outside the WG, and if it's going to get done, then it's better to do it
> > "in" the WG than outside it.
>
> There is added complexity because WG's get to chose Informational vs
> StandardsTrack, and there are sometimes interactions of that decision
> with IANA policies on what is required to allocate a code point.  That
> interaction seems mostly unfortunate.
>

Note that this is not true in this case. TLS code points can be registered
with either type of RFC, and in fact with no RFC at all. The only time
that a Standards Track RFC is required is for "Recommended=Y"

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]