Please DO NOT reply to this email.
I-D:
ID Tracker URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/
IETF Last Call has ended, and the state has been changed to
Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC 6347.
- At the end of 7.5, it wasn't clear what "foregoing" referred to.
- It was sugges
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC 6347.
Personally I think that would be fine -
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC
6347.
Personally I think that would be fine -
On 2/11/15 1:36 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC
6347.
On 2/11/15 2:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and
Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to http://www.iet
On 2/11/15 1:53 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 2/11/15 2:26 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
- At the end of 7.5, it wasn't clear what "foregoing" referred to.
That entire section - there is no (need for) certificate revocation in
DANE.
So probably be
