+1
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 9:52 PM Bryan Call wrote:
> +1
>
> -Bryan
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
> >
> > This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time
> to remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t
> think any o
+1
-Bryan
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time to
> remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t
> think any of us enables this ?
>
> — Leif
>
+1
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:51 PM Steven R. Feltner
wrote:
> +1
>
> On 6/6/19, 8:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" wrote:
>
> This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time
> to remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t
> think any of us enables
+1
On 6/6/19, 8:32 PM, "Leif Hedstrom" wrote:
This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time to
remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t think
any of us enables this ?
— Leif
+1
Totally Agree - a much straightforward vote than disabling tlsv1.1 :=)
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
>
> This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time to
> remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t
> think any of
+1
On Thursday, June 6, 2019, 5:32:10 PM PDT, Leif Hedstrom
wrote:
This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time to
remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t think
any of us enables this ?
— Leif
This code is disabled and does not build by default. I think it’s time to
remove this code path completely, it’s an insecure protocol, and I don’t think
any of us enables this ?
— Leif
