Re: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-randomness-improvements-08.txt

["Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>]

>>  In this case, it seems like a separate document for other constructions
is definitely more appropriate---no sense introducing serious delay for
this document

Many thanks, Riad!

I'll definitely think about this - maybe it will be reasonable to arrange a
discussion of this (with slides, at CFRG) at IETF 107 and initiate a
document on this.
If you don't mind, I'll get in touch with you off-list in the beginning of
2020 - to discuss, what should be included in such a document. Would you
like to participate in this?..

>> But: would it be possible to clarify, maybe just in the intro, that this
document is primarily geared toward the HSM case?
I think that mentioning HSMs as one of most important cases when the
construction is needed, can be helpful.
Chris, Nick, what do you think?

Best regards,
Stanislav


пн, 25 нояб. 2019 г. в 00:37, Riad S. Wahby <[e-mail]>:

> "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > But this makes the scope of the I-D (initially motivated by TLS servers)
> > wider - a "menu of choices" of good solutions instead of one good
> solution.
> > If we want to do this, then, as it seems to me, the current process with
> an
> > I-D, which has already passed the RGLC and has moved to Waiting for
> > Document Shepherd stage, should be stopped and returned to the previous
> > stage of a work item before RGLC.
>
> In this case, it seems like a separate document for other constructions
> is definitely more appropriate---no sense introducing serious delay for
> this document.
>
> But: would it be possible to clarify, maybe just in the intro, that this
> document is primarily geared toward the HSM case?
>
> -=rsw
>