I agree that an interim meeting would be useful. It seems unlikely that we will
make much progress on the mailing list alone.
Cheers,
Andrei
-Original Message-
From: Salz, Rich
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 9:00 AM
To: Dennis Jackson ; TLS List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS]Re: Discussions
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 06:56:17PM -0700, Dennis Jackson wrote:
> On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
>
> > I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion, over
> > what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good mechanism
> > that is fairly well defined and i
>The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks ago,
> received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting
I strongly agree with this. Well, actually, everyone should be able to agree
with this because it's two factual statements. :)
I think the challenge of having a
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
