Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I'm confused as to why this is confusing tbh;-)

On 24/06/2020 23:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> So it remains unclear to me whether we are being asked to consider "should
> we spend time to do the polishing/analysis in (2) above", or if we are
> being asked to (implicitly) consider something like (3) above, i.e., is
> EDHOC or cTLS a better outcome for the greater Internet ecosystem.

Let me try this way:

- TLS has adopted cTLS. That will follow IETF process
  and turn into an RFC or not.
- The question here is whether or not this WG wants to
  adopt edhoc, and then follow the usual IETF process
  which will turn that into an RFC, or not.

If this WG adopts edhoc, one or both of cTLS and edhoc
might or might not end up as an RFC.

If the WG don't adopt edhoc, then yes, it'd be time to
shut up shop for this WG is my guess.

It is also true that once a WG adopts a draft, it is
quite likely to end up as an RFC, but that is not the
question we're answering now, and is not one we can
answer, as it requires an IETF last call etc.

Does that help?

Cheers,
S.