On Oct 7, 2017 10:43, "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
➢ I don't want to speak for browser vendors, but history suggests that Option 3) may not be a viable one for browsers with a significant market share. They can do what they want, but if they’re “in the rough” on the consensus call, I hope they’ll go along. Rich, I think you may be forgetting that IETF standards are voluntary. They may be in the rough with regard to Publishing an RFC, but if they can't ship that RFC, they won't, and publishing an RFC that can't be shipped doesn't do much good. Better to take the time to figure out how to make this deployable (with a blend of 1/2 and 3). We're still a decade ahead of the 1.2 roll out timeline. --Richard As for yoav’s point about “not during Q4” freeze; that happens to both clients and servers :) I ask that everyone who is involved in these “middlebox failure experiments,” collectively or individually, work on a presentation for Singapore. Unless there are some big surprises, I am going to ask for a consensus call on just moving it forward. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
