From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@proper.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:23:45 +0700
Message-ID: <EDD45332-18A3-43DD-908F-D86AB2175894@proper.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <MN2PR17MB3901536C5B46BC0C10D681C5CDDE2@MN2PR17MB3901.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
References: 
 <174184001345.838119.1665635750501653391@dt-datatracker-775fc5cbb8-824tp>
 <6BB43AEB-CF42-4FE2-998A-DB85B373D464@proper.com>
 <CAOgPGoBg33o7N95PSue3KMwaOz=DcaP7tnNenX=WYQ_jitAyYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <492866DC-4B28-441A-87D9-54E27A7B02E1@proper.com>
 <MN2PR17MB3901536C5B46BC0C10D681C5CDDE2@MN2PR17MB3901.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 3OE7F632FUAG3MQ4DHRDY73ERPBDE5YN
CC: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis@ietf.org,
 paul.wouters@aiven.io, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTLS=5D_Re=3A_=5BLast-Call=5D_Last_Call=3A_=3Cdraft-ietf-tls-rfc?=
 =?utf-8?q?8447bis-11=2Etxt=3E_=28IANA_Registry_Updates_for_TLS_and_DTLS=29_?=
 =?utf-8?q?to_Proposed_Standard?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6V5Flj-Le3aQkTLq4vsPZ1uLXBQ>

On 18 Mar 2025, at 11:53, Salz, Rich wrote:

>> So, again: This draft should either be expanded to say what TLS client=
s and servers and configuration SHOULD / MUST do with D-level components,=
 or tell readers why it is not. Telling developers "go look at every doc =
that is liked from a D-level spec" is likely to cause them to not do so, =
and the result will be insecure implementations and lack of interoperabil=
ity.
>
> I think it is good that the draft says =E2=80=9Cwe discourage=E2=80=9D =
and that=E2=80=99s good enough. The whole point of saying discouraged is =
that it doesn=E2=80=99t rise to the level of SHOULD NOT.

Ah! If that's what the TLS WG agrees on, it is a simple thing to add to t=
he draft so that the reader understands the context of "discouraged".

--Paul Hoffman