[saag] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02 ("one of th e reasons")
Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABcZeBNB+Vv8S=yTWnoxeBqv6_n3hMM3QFhkD=c43J4Cg=AmDA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 11:52 AM Paul Wouters <paul.wouters= [email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > I'm not sure this is true. Suppose we had a Standards Track RFC which stated that all cryptographic algorithm specifications had to come with source code; the AD would not have freedom to AD sponsor one without source code without also updating that RFC. Or do you think I'm wrong about the process? -Ekr _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]