The adoption call ended on Friday. There is support for adopting and working
on this draft as a WG item. There was one voice of possible dissent, but it
appears as if the rationale provided by the authors of this draft swayed them
enough to not oppose adoption.
NOTE: Technically, we will forma
+1 for adoption.
2019年11月21日(木) 18:49 Salz, Rich :
> I am against the working group NOT adopting this.
>
>
> ___
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
--
Kazuho Oku
___
’ usecases.
From: David Benjamin
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 7:27 PM
To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
Cc: Sean Turner ; TLS List
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-davidben-tls-batch-signing
Deployments whose long-term private key is an ECDSA or EdDSA key stored in
memory probably
;
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Sean Turner
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 1:57 AM
> To: TLS List
> Subject: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-davidben-tls-batch-signing
>
> At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for
call for draft-davidben-tls-batch-signing
At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS" [0] as a
WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG should
not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by posting a
message to the T
I am against the working group NOT adopting this.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
I support adoption. We can sort out the few tiny issues remaining in the
working group.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, at 14:56, Sean Turner wrote:
> At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS"
> [0] as a WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the
> TLS WG
I favor adoption
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:56 PM Sean Turner wrote:
> At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS" [0]
> as a WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG
> should not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by
>
At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS" [0] as a
WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG should
not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by posting a
message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 13 December 2019 (and say why)
