MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <708C8E8E-37AE-4B8F-9843-B0F8CDB29229@gmail.com>
References: <20170116200948.6535.qmail@cr.yp.to>
 <5eeb3d4d-1fc0-35ba-6f47-87fa0d808edc@cs.tcd.ie>
 <AA42E783-43FC-4C9B-A387-623B5B18B4FB@gmail.com>
 <708C8E8E-37AE-4B8F-9843-B0F8CDB29229@gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:33:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cm22h8_61CEZjKYyHfnd7vvnC39ZMjhusjWcZKu_Z0zhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/i-DgDsJ9-YDcumA1BR_p9n_1lk4>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Help with the use of contexts
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 13:48, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> w=
rote:
>>>
>>>
>>> However, I really do wish that CFRG specs would not offer
>>> both choices - that will simply lead to repeating this
>>> discussion each time an IETF protocol wants to use the CFRG
>>> spec. And of course, different decisions will be made over
>>> time,
>>
>> Not over time. In the next few months the IESG is going to get documents=
 about EdDSA signatures from TLS, IPsecME and curdle for signatures in TLS,=
 IKE, and PKIX respectively.  If the decision is not the same in all of the=
m, I think (hope) that the IESG would ask why.
>
> So now that RFC 8032 is out and does include both choices, what is our ad=
vice to TLS, IPsecME and Curdle?  Contexts or no?
>
> Yoav
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

No contexts. Why did we ever include them?

--=20
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.