[saag] Re: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-crypto-registries-00.txt

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 6:58 PM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Greetings Paul!
>
> On 29.11.2024 00:00, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>
> As long as the code points are references by versioned drafts, this is not an issue. We are looking at the few cases where this was done using an unversioned draft and working with IANA to resolve those.
>
> But it is also an issue if you are an implementer and not a protocol spec developer, and you are trying to economically and securely manage your coding and COGS investments.  An RFC or similar vehicle is signal that This->spec will not change without going through a rather involved public development process. It gets particularly concerning when different RFPs have different specific draft version requirements.  That's really where either interoperability begins to break down and/or code complexity goes up, even if different code points are used for different versions.

If an implementor doesn't want to play the game, than they won't serve
the market that requires that new feature. But the new feature/option
has value, or it wouldn't be required. And if they can't deliver the
value, someone else will. Not our problem. Schumptarian creative
destruction is essential for progress. It would of course be better if
that became part of an RFC, but that doesn't really change the
calculus, nor should we be reluctant to try to do better.

If there was no early deployment, we wouldn't have TLS 1.3.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
>
> Eliot
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]



-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim