I do not think this needs to be a PS specification. The code points here do
not require a standards track RFC.
Note that advancing this at PS would require a new IETF LC.
-Ekr
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 1:07 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind w
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> I would think this is actually a PS given it extents a protocol based on the
> extension point this protocol provides. Maybe it is not really adding a new
> function but it also kind
Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: 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 https://www.
