I suggest we not have this debate now. We'll have a lot more data towards the end of the month and we can have an informed discussion then.
-Ekr On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
