Looks to me like this is fine to go ahead. So Sean
and Joe, please submit a draft-ietf-tls- version of
this I-D.
Thanks,
S
On 22/10/16 15:30, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per
> discussions at WG meetings and on the list. As they've
>
+1
Definitely good enough starting point.
Cheers,
Andrei
From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xiaoyin Liu
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 10:02 AM
To: Eric Rescorla ; Stephen Farrell
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
Good plan. I support publishing this doc.
(I haven't reviewed this recently, but will commit to do so.)
On 24 Oct 2016 3:34 AM, "Sean Turner" wrote:
> Note that I hope that we don’t need to present in Korea. My opinion is
> that this process mumbo jumbo is important (to some), but I don’t thin
Note that I hope that we don’t need to present in Korea. My opinion is that
this process mumbo jumbo is important (to some), but I don’t think it should
occupy the group’s f2f time. But, it still needs review so please do and
provide comments either here or via a PR.
spt
> On Oct 22, 2016, a
+1
Xiaoyin
From: Eric Rescorla<mailto:e...@rtfm.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Stephen Farrell<mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
+1
This d
+1
This draft just codifies stuff that we had already agreed on but had been
awkwardly stuffed in TLS 1.3. Having it separate is an improvement.
-Ekr
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per
> discussions a
Hi all,
Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per
discussions at WG meetings and on the list. As they've
done the initial work, but are WG chairs, they wanted
me (as responsible AD) to call consensus for it. (They
wrote this up as finding authors for such fairly boring
stuff was hard
