[saag] Re: draft update on discussion on crypto practices at IETF
Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hiya, On 23/01/2025 01:50, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 1:39 PM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 22/01/2025 19:12, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>>> We know what SEC does >> > >>> I disagree with that on a factual basis. In the last year, I have >>> had at least three people express surprise that some Security Area >>> registries allow Internet Drafts as references. >> >> There's a related (almost inverse) controversy as well: some >> people assert that having a code-point associated with an I-D >> means that no RFC ought later be produced. >> > > Hmm... I don't think I've seen anybody assert that. Can you provide > a reference? It's not the only one but this one [1] will do. And yes, you said "an I-D is sufficient" and not "no RFC should be produced" and there's more subtleties too (ntru not being a nist-winner) but IIRC at that time you and others were arguing that the relevant I-D ought not be AD sponsored, which to me, amounted to saying no RFC ought be produced because the code-point was allocated based on the I-D. Cheers, S. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/UkdcMBXtfhjO9zhdFFYeILSHHvM/ > > -Ekr > _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
OpenPGP_signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 236 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wnsEABYIACMWIQQwbnhHy1kPJkWsM6fk2On5l6gz3QUCZ5IoUQUDAAAAAAAKCRDk2On5l6gz3V4T AQCY7LDgWojrRXbOk2MDBPCzcocVPISFdVoxPL0Qhzb02QD+OkM9POmgKTlDC4pkW3PZ7Kgvcxor YjNE5GJya5P6VQw= =9yfC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----