[saag] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02 ("one of th e reasons")
Eric Rescorla <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABcZeBPkHrbuKdsEpJ5qeUGhHjwvSit27Xapt=6u_7tR7fwPwA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:04 PM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > Thanks. I agree with this description of the process. -Ekr _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]