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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

I'm confused.  Are you saying that external SDOs aren't able to use a TLS
ciphersuite unless the TLS WG publishes an RFC on it, even if there's a
registered IANA code point?  Even if that's the case, it seems like a them
problem and not an us problem.  Like, get out of your own way, man.

If they need Recommended=Y, that's a different question, and one that the
draft already accommodates.  Clearly WG action is required for that.

--Richard

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 12:46 AM John Mattsson <john.mattsson=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Completely agree that this type of policy should be in the charter and not
> in a draft.
>
> I am against any changes in this direction until TLS WG has tried to
> understand the needs of external SDOs using TLS and made sure that we can
> improve (and sustain) the applicability and suitability of the TLS family
> of protocols for use in emerging protocols and use cases.
>
> At IETF 125, I would like to discuss sending an LS to SDOs relying on TLS
> asking them if this kind of major change would work for them and if not
> explain why.
>
> John
>
> *From: *Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 24 February 2026 at 11:11
> *To: *Felix Linker <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[TLS] Re: New Version Notification for
> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt
>
> Yes, true!
>
> Nadim Kobeissi
> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
>
> On 24 Feb 2026, at 10:25 AM, Felix Linker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry to be pedantic, but shouldn't the charter define what can and cannot
> be adopted? Adding 1-2 sentences to the charter paragraph starting with
> "The third goal..." could have the same effect as this document, but be one
> document less.
>
> Best,
> Felix
>
> Am Di., 24. Feb. 2026 um 01:56 Uhr schrieb Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>:
>
> Hi TLS folks,
>
> Those who have worked with me know that I hate doing unnecessary work.  It
> occurred to me that the TLS WG has been doing a lot of unnecessary work on
> drafts that just register crypto algorithms.  This draft proposes that we
> shouldn't do that.
>
> Submitted for your consideration,
> --Richard
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 2:53 PM
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt
> To: Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>
>
>
> A new version of Internet-Draft
> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt has been successfully
> submitted by Richard Barnes and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:     draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email
> Revision: 00
> Title:    Stop Doing Cryptographic Algorithm Drafts when Email to IANA is
> All You Need
> Date:     2026-02-24
> Group:    Individual Submission
> Pages:    5
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email/
> HTML:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.html
> HTMLized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email
>
>
> Abstract:
>
>    People keep pitching drafts to the TLS Working Group where the only
>    thing the draft does is register a code point for a cryptographic
>    algorithm.  Stop doing that.  It's unnecessary.  Write an email to
>    IANA instead.
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>