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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 2:58 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

They may accept any draft for AD sponsoring. The publication path may still
show that they made a mistake and that publication is not allowed for a
variety of reasons, amongst them "there is no consensus for this".


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?
>

They could sponsor the draft, but obvious publication would justifyingly
fail. One hopes
the AD realizes that before agreeing to AD Sponsor.

Paul

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