> The TLS WG has requested a two hour session slot at IETF 121 [0]; we are not
> yet sure of the timing. For planning purposes, the chairs would like to
> solicit input from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics
> request and an estimate for how much time you will need to
> t
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello
with DNS Service Bindings'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:24 PM Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:46 AM Salz, Rich
> wrote:
> >
> > > If the FATT process still has anonymous reviewers, IMO it is
> > > still broken.
> >
> > I had a personal conflict so could only attend the last few minutes of
> the meeting but I
RFC 2418 specifically says the output of the design team is subject to
WG consensus. That's not true of the FATT right now: it goes
separately into Shepard Report, comes after WGLC, etc. Doesn't seem to
me that it's within what was contemplated there. And what FATT is
assessing is not a narrow tech
{Reposted with correct URL.}
\> The TLS WG has requested a two hour session slot at IETF 121 [0]; we are not
yet sure of the timing. For planning purposes, the chairs would like to solicit
input from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics request and
an estimate for how much t
> RFC 2418 specifically says the output of the design team is subject to
> WG consensus. That's not true of the FATT right now: it goes
> separately into Shepard Report, comes after WGLC, etc. Doesn't seem to
> me that it's within what was contemplated there. And what FATT is
> assessing is not a n
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024, 7:29 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> > RFC 2418 specifically says the output of the design team is subject to
> > WG consensus. That's not true of the FATT right now: it goes
> > separately into Shepard Report, comes after WGLC, etc. Doesn't seem to
> > me that it's within what was c
