Hi David!
From: iesg [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Benjamin
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 5:44 PM
To: Roman Danyliw
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-gre...@ietf.org; ; The IESG
; Sean Turner ; tls-chairs
Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: (with
COM
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:m...@lowentropy.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:02 PM
> To: David Benjamin ; Roman
> Danyliw
> Cc: draft-ietf-tls-gre...@ietf.org; ; The IESG
> ; tls-chairs
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tl
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, at 07:44, David Benjamin wrote:
> That clause was meant to be descriptive of the other bits of the
> document. "[Such-and-such] may not be [such-and-such]ed, so [some
> consequence of this]". Using "must not" reads odd to me: "GREASE values
> must not be negotiated, so the
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:39 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> (1) Per the following:
>
> Section 3.1 says “Not
The actual requirement in RFC 8126 doesn’t say the public specification needs
to be in English, but it does say that “the designated expert will review the
public specification.” This suggests that whatever language the authoritative
specification might be posted in, the designated expert needs
