[saag] Re: [Ext] draft-paulwh-crypto-components-01

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 6:41 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2025, at 15:32, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think this is a good start. One thing I would like to see is some
> > discussion of the reasons why many registries have gone to permissive
> > policies, namely concerns about code point squatting, the inadequacy
> > of controlling the registry as a mechanism of influencing implementor
> > behavior, and the cost to the WG of evaluating new mechanisms.
>
> I'm fine with adding this because I agree with it, but so far we've been
> hesitant to put words in the mouths of WGs about why they did a thing,
> particularly long ago. What do others think about this addition?
>
>
> > S 1.
> >    This document explicitly does not prohibit exceptions from the
> >    current practices.  Given the wide variety of historical practices,
> >    the difficulty of differentiating what is a base primitive and what
> >    is a cryptographic component, and the variety of needs in IETF
> >    working groups, the guidance in this document gives leeway for future
> >    specifications.
> >
> > This first sentence seems redundant in view of the text in S 3
> > that says:
> >
> >    This
> >    document does not define any new policies, but instead describes the
> >    many practices that have been used, particularly the practices that
> >    are considered best current practices today.
> >
> > If we don't define new policies, how could we prohibit exceptions?
>
> This list has been concerned with keeping the document squarely in the
> "not prohibiting" lane, so repeating something from the introduction seems
> fine.
>

My concern is that it's actually confusing to say you don't prohibit things
if the entire document is non-normative.

-Ekr

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