On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 09:57:53PM +0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM Rob Sayre wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:08 PM Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I do not think you have consensus for th
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:58 AM Rob Sayre wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:08 PM Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>>
I do not think you have consensus for that change to W
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 9:42 AM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 09:57:53PM +0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:48 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM Rob Sayre wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:08 PM Cullen Jenn
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 11:42 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't there be an informative reference?
>
> I think that's largely a question for the sponsoring AD (CC'd) and the RFC
> Editor.
>
Well, I hope we can all agree that the document refers to an RFC without a
citation in the referen
