Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-05-22 Thread Christopher Wood
We trust the editors will faithfully enact all editorial changes they agree with as the document moves forward in the process. If there were non-editorial comments that we overlooked, could you please resurface them?Best,Chris On May 21, 2023, at 7:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-05-22 Thread Rob Sayre
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:59 PM Christopher Wood wrote: > We trust the editors will faithfully enact all editorial changes they > agree with as the document moves forward in the process. If there were > non-editorial comments that we overlooked, could you please resurface them? > Hi, I made th

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-05-22 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:09 PM Rob Sayre wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:59 PM Christopher Wood > wrote: > >> We trust the editors will faithfully enact all editorial changes they >> agree with as the document moves forward in the process. If there were >> non-editorial comments that we ove

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-05-22 Thread Rob Sayre
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 3:49 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:09 PM Rob Sayre wrote: > >> The one real problem (imho) with the document is nested MUST requirements: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6x0uEVIUCBwMOIaV3UBzqeRt6Ys/ >> >> EKR called this "guidance", but