[TLS] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

+1 for more explicit statements about the use case in which the cyphersuite is
deemed to be applicable and maybe even preferrable over the alternative.

But it would be good to keep the discussion about the cyphersuite draft constrained
to mail thread with it in the title. This thread here is about the meta thread
for another draft about what to do in TLS in general and not only this specific
case.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 09:39:50AM +0000, Bellebaum, Thomas wrote:
> > I am happy to cut down the Motivations to 'nothing', I thought I was  
> > obligated to say 'something'
> 
> Saying 'nothing' in the draft is advocacy too, because it says something to publish an RFC in the first place.
> My main fear here is that people would start making up their own rationalizations for the existence of this RFC-to-be. After all, "the TLS WG would have published it for *some* reason", most likely because "it's just a good idea in general".
> 
> The point of saying something is to be explicit about what our motivations are; to advocate for its use only under certain conditions rather than broadly. Put plainly:
> 
> - If we think the only reason for deploying this is CNSA 2.0 and alike, we should say so.
> - If we think there are other good reasons with limited scope, we should say so.
> - If we think others are safer with hybrids, we should say so.
> 
> I believe this explicitness is the preferable way to limit advocacy, not saying less.
> 
> -- TBB
> 
> P.S. Of course, resolving these 'If's is the point of much discussion on this list.



-- 
---
[e-mail]