Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:22 AM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
wrote:

> Trimmed.
>
> On 3/25/2024 12:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
> <orie@transmute.industries> wrote:
>
>> > Internet-Drafts (often referred to simply as "drafts") have no formal
>> status, and are subject to change or removal at any time; therefore they
>> should not be cited or quoted in any formal document.
>> we are the ones hosting their drafts.
>>
>
> Yeah, this seems pretty speculative.
>
> Fortunately, we have a natural experiment here, because RFC 8446
> explicitly allows the registration of TLS code points based on I-Ds, so in
> five years I guess we can see how that worked.
>
> -Ekr
>
> Hi -
>
> I just took a look at RFC8446 and I can't find support for that claim.
>
My mistake, it's 8447. Muscle memory took over there.

See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8447#section-7

-Ekr

The IANA considerations section refers to RFC8126 and only "Specification
> Required" or "Standards Action" as the path to registration.   Searching
> for "ID", "I-D", "internet draft" and "Internet-Draft" doesn't get me
> anything.
>
> AFAIK, "Specification Required" as defined in 8126 does not include
> Internet Drafts, even under the heading of "informal documentation" .
> Maybe time to ask the IANA?
>
> Later, Mike
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>