On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: No Objection
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> -
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Yes
>
> --
> COMMENT:
>
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Melnikov
wrote:
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Discuss
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
> --
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
Matt, thanks for your review. Shumon, thanks for your response. I have entered
a No Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Feb 6, 2018, at 11:31 PM, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Matthew Miller
> mailto:linuxwolf+i...@outer-planes.net>>
> wrote:
> Reviewer: Matthew Miller
>
I misread the question. You are right, is should be "No".
Russ
> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> This is about the OLD extension. I think that NO is appropriate for
> something we deprecate.
>
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/14
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018
This is about the OLD extension. I think that NO is appropriate for
something we deprecate.
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/14
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> If the WG is going to publish the standards track RFC, then the extension it
> defines should say
I am for this change.
-Ekr
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> All,
>
> Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs
> to confirm that draft-ietf-tls-record-limit should change
> max_fragment_length [1] from “Yes” in our soon to be created Recomm
If the WG is going to publish the standards track RFC, then the extension it
defines should say 'Yes' in the recommended column.
Russ
> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs to
> confirm that dr
All,
Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs to
confirm that draft-ietf-tls-record-limit should change max_fragment_length [1]
from “Yes” in our soon to be created Recommended column (see [2]) to a “No”.
Please indicate by 2359 UTC on 14 Feb whether you are f
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please r
Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please ref
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Ple
13 matches
Mail list logo
