On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > With respect to suites and profiles, saying "country-specific" is going to turn into a rat hole. Sir, you may dig as many ratholes as you like. I was intentionally being terse. Pick another word if you like, I was merely offering a suggestion. > You might say that there should be no Informational RFCs specifying cryptographic suites and profiles at all unless the profile was put together in the IETF, [...] I don't think that's relevant. We have now what I think is a good practice. The CFRG has now, for some time, reviewed crypto and made statements about fitness for purpose (Information RFCs). That set is potentially larger than the set that we as the IETF might want to draw on, but generally they don't publish things that don't have customers. The IETF then integrates into protocols as it sees fit. That step isn't formalized, but there are many (Stephen included) who make a point of holding a high bar for the inclusion of new crypto. Again, my opinion, but profiles aren't that valuable, other than what is implicit in what we choose to publish. > At some point, the IAB might settle this debate. (IAB hat) The IETF decides its own consensus.
