Hi,
I think the concern might center around previous standards.
thanks,
Rob
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 5:34 PM Sean Turner wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> Given that there appears to be emerging consensus around the "issue
> discussion mode with email summaries sounds" presented in Chris' email from
> jus
Hiya,
On 28/10/2020 00:32, Sean Turner wrote:
Stephen,
Given that there appears to be emerging consensus around the "issue
discussion mode with email summaries sounds" presented in Chris'
email from just last week can we let that settle?
My bet is that yes the WG will land on that bad answer
Stephen,
Given that there appears to be emerging consensus around the "issue discussion
mode with email summaries sounds" presented in Chris' email from just last week
can we let that settle?
We can certainly get a summary together - granted there have been interim
meetings with published minu
On 27/10/2020 23:27, Eric Rescorla wrote:
In fact, it*is* the IETF process, or rather one permitted IETF process,
since RFC 8874.
I don't believe the current case matches my recollection of
that, but I've not checked in detail. The lack of list
discussion certainly smells wrong to me.
If
>I don't think what you're complaining about can be attributed to GitHub.
> Tools are just tools, how they're used is what's relevant (i.e., this could
> just as easily happen over e-mail).
Frictionless and increased speed can be its own drawback.
___
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:20 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 27/10/2020 23:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:00 PM Stephen Farrell
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hiya,
> >>
> >> On 27/10/2020 22:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >>> Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> I don't think what yo
Hiya,
On 27/10/2020 23:06, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:00 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
Hiya,
On 27/10/2020 22:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Stephen,
I don't think what you're complaining about can be attributed to
GitHub. Tools are just tools, how they're used is what's
re
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 4:00 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 27/10/2020 22:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >
> > I don't think what you're complaining about can be attributed to
> > GitHub. Tools are just tools, how they're used is what's relevant
> > (i.e., this could just a
Hiya,
On 27/10/2020 22:28, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Stephen,
I don't think what you're complaining about can be attributed to
GitHub. Tools are just tools, how they're used is what's relevant
(i.e., this could just as easily happen over e-mail).
Sorta. I doubt the volume of traffic would've ha
Stephen,
I don't think what you're complaining about can be attributed to GitHub. Tools
are just tools, how they're used is what's relevant (i.e., this could just as
easily happen over e-mail).
Cheers,
> On 28 Oct 2020, at 7:31 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> The latest ECH dra
Hiya,
The latest ECH draft from Oct 16 says "ECH uses draft-05 of
HPKE for public key encryption."
The latest HPKE draft (-06) from Oct 23 has a few minor
incompatible changes (for good but relatively trivial
reasons).
So for interop ECH apparently requires use of an outdated
I-D, despite the
11 matches
Mail list logo
