Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: No Objection
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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-padding/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As Alissa, I was wondering why it wasn’t easier to fix the one implementation instead. The shepherd wrote: "Since then it has been found that this extension can server (sic) to alleviate issues with issues in several vendor's products. There was good consensus to move forward with this document as it may find further applicability in the future.” So it looks like the problem is not just one implementation… If the WG now thinks that this extension may be valuable for other things besides fixing bugs, then it might be nice to reword some of the document to not focus on what seems to be one bug and just present the extension for what it is: padding. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
