On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:15 PM Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2023, 19:36 Martin Thomson, wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 20:28, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>> > Are the things like national-wide standards considered as new features
>> > (until they don't pretend to be
Dear Martin,
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023, 19:36 Martin Thomson, wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 20:28, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> > Are the things like national-wide standards considered as new features
> > (until they don't pretend to be Internet-wide standards)?
>
> I would not expect the IETF to be sp
On Sat, Apr 1, 2023, at 20:28, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
> Are the things like national-wide standards considered as new features
> (until they don't pretend to be Internet-wide standards)?
I would not expect the IETF to be specifying national standards (that's an
obvious contradiction anyway).
It
Dear Rich,
Are the things like national-wide standards considered as new features
(until they don't pretend to be Internet-wide standards)?
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 2:11 AM Salz, Rich
wrote:
>
> FWIW, my plan for the draft (which I hope to submit for adoption within a
> month) is to include text
FWIW, my plan for the draft (which I hope to submit for adoption within a
month) is to include text that says, basically, while no new features will be
ADDED to TLS 1.2, the WG may decide to deprecate or remove things that have
become security risks. I think it's better to keep specifics in sep
