On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, at 16:10, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> I think I would disagree with this claim. Application-layer signals are
> one way to solve this problem, but they are not a necessary condition.
Sure. I was maybe imprecise in writing this up; this is a statement I agree
with. I'm more conce
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 7:18 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
> I think that the text on presented identifiers needs work.
>
> There are a few different things at play here:
>
> The identities we use are not always as specific as the identity used in
> application protocols. On the web, we use origins,
I think that the text on presented identifiers needs work.
There are a few different things at play here:
The identities we use are not always as specific as the identity used in
application protocols. On the web, we use origins, which is scheme+host+port,
but the reference identity that we us
FWIW, I found nothing in that text to object to...
> On 16 Nov 2021, at 3:14 pm, Salz, Rich
> wrote:
>
> Ryan Sleevi has proposed adding the text below to the security considerations
> section. I’ve posted about this before and had miniscule feedback. Barring
> strong objections, I intend to
Ryan Sleevi has proposed adding the text below to the security considerations
section. I’ve posted about this before and had miniscule feedback. Barring
strong objections, I intend to merge this near the end of the week and publish
a new draft containing this and the name-change.
## Multiple P
* It started off with this discussion, but clearly, it's a much broader
change. It does try and reintroduce the ALPN conversation, although with a
looser 2119 fit, and trying to explain the "why" of the SHOULD, in a way
directly relevant to this specification, in a way that is hopefully acce
