[saag] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02 ("one of th e reasons")

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:32 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>    - One of the reasons I wanted to get such a draft out that I can point
>    to, is precisely because
>
> Security ADs are regularly approached (in private) with requests to AD
> sponsor some crypto algorithm.
>
>
>
> That is a reasonable reason, but this draft doesn’t seem to address it.
> Are you thinking that it does so, albeit indirectly, by pointing out the
> many criteria that need to be considered?
>
>
>
> How does this draft help you say no?  Or is the intent that you can say
> “please address the points here and then I’ll consider it”
>

As ADs (current and future) have the freedom to accept any draft for AD
sponsoring, there is no normative text that could be used
to restrict that.

The text helps me and future ADs to answer these questions in the same way
for everyone, and helps to point out that AD sponsoring
cryptographic algorithms is not the "current way" even if it has been done
in the past. It also points them to the proper places to go to.
The document also hopefully helps the ISE when propoents in variably end up
there as a possible publication venue.

Obviously, I wish I had something more normative, as that would be a better
tool for ADs, but I don't think that is possible within
our remit of how IETF works. But would be very happy if you can provide
text to make it more useful.

Paul

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