On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:51 AM tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22/07/2020 09:29, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I have railed against 'vanity crypto' in the past. And there is actually a
>> pretty good argument that less crypto is more. But I have since realized
>> even that type of gatekeeping is counterproductive.
>
> Some of the COSE registries (for example, at https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#algorithms) have a column marked “Recommended”. I find this helpful, but maybe the language is not as strong as we would like. As IETFers we assume this to mean something more than is written, and perhaps (in order to make clear what is going on) we should be explicit in changing the column heading to “Recommended by the IETF” or by saying s/No/Not recommended by the IETF/
> Doing this in other registries would allow “vanity” registrations while making it clear what the IETF’s opinion is
Well, recommended by someone such as the WG or a designated expert or ....
Look, for example, at the TLS ciphersuite registry and it has a
'recommended' column but you need to know that this is a designated
expert registry and has - at most - endorsement from the WG and not from
the IETF in the sense we usually understand it, of having been judged to
have or have not consensus in an IETF Last Call.
Not quite.
The experts are responsible for approving assignments and the bar for that is that a specification exists. However, setting the Recommended column to "Y" requires a standards action.
-Ekr
