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

[Ilari Liusvaara <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 02:55:41PM -1000, Richard Barnes wrote:
> 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.
> 
> ---------- 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

There are also some other registeries besides crypto algorithms where
adoption would likely be waste of time:

- TLS Exporter Labels
- TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels
- TLS Certificate Types
- TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs
- TLS Certificate Compression Algorithm IDs

(The last one of has odd-looking registration policy, since there are
seemingly no privileged values and >10k free values.)


Then there are some extensions and flags that are almost-trivial and
would be waste of time (for both the WG and authors) to adopt. Altough
the current registry seems to only have 4 codepoints that are not
RFC(-to-be).




-Ilari