On 19/11/2018 22:56, Michael Richardson wrote: > And we should (should we?) write a document saying that they MUST NOT do so. If implementers consider such a document useful then we should do it. The potential benefit I guess could be that when someone says "hey, let's support ETSI's-broken-TLS" an implementer could say "please read RFC<foo>" for why we don't." I'm not sure if such a document would be useful as I don't have to face such issues. (If TLS implementers said it were, I'd be happy to help with one.) > Or as Ben just asked, do a liason. That's separately needed (and I'm told happening). There's copyright and good neighbour issues there that the IETF and ETSI could do with sorting out, over and above the specifics of the ETSI TC that rubber-stamped the draft-green thing that had been explicitly rejected in the IETF. S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
