Re: [TLS] (offline) Re: Draft for SM cipher suites used in TLS1.3

The intent of the "Specification Required" requirement for registration is
that sufficient public information be available to allow an interoperable
implementation. Specifically, the text says:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.6

   For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a
   designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and
   their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily
   available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
   interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
   This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
   requirement of a formal public specification.  In addition to the
   normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review
   the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently
   stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to
   allow interoperable implementations.

I don't think that a for-pay specification meets that threshold, though I'm
not aware of any IETF-wide policy on that (although I may just have missed
it).

In the absence of that, it would as stated above, be on the Expert to
determine
the standard.

-Ekr

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

>
>
> Ø  This is one example: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8428.txt
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> That is a bit different since RNC isn’t needed to implement the RFC, and a web search for “relaxng” finds thousands of references.  The SM2, etc., situation is different because you cannot implement the cipher without the definition of it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>