[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3

[Mike Shaver <[e-mail]>]

It's interesting, IMO, that there is so much belief that an RFC designation
will drive so much adoption here, but it didn't seem to be the same
consensus that enshrining SSLKEYLOGFILE in an RFC might increase the number
of systems that support key exfil.

To be sure, I don't confidently know which is the case; perhaps both,
though I can't figure out how to reconcile that myself at this point.

Mike

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:16 PM Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Jan Schaumann <jschauma=[e-mail]> writes:
>
> >It may seem silly to all folks who are directly involved here in these
> >discussions, but many software and service providers view a "draft" as
> >immature, not final, subject to change and may not implement until it has
> an
> >RFC number.
>
> This is standard policy for a number of organisations I deal with: If it's
> not
> a published standard (ISO, IEEE, RFC), it doesn't get considered.  They
> don't
> sell products based on drafts.
>
> (Actually for IEEE stuff at least one of them pre-implements based on
> drafts
> so they're ready for market when it's finalised, but that's splitting
> hairs).
>
> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>