This is about the OLD extension. I think that NO is appropriate for something we deprecate.
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/14 On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > If the WG is going to publish the standards track RFC, then the extension it > defines should say 'Yes' in the recommended column. > > Russ > > >> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs >> to confirm that draft-ietf-tls-record-limit should change >> max_fragment_length [1] from “Yes” in our soon to be created Recommended >> column (see [2]) to a “No”. Please indicate by 2359 UTC on 14 Feb whether >> you are for or against this change; and if you are against please indicate >> why. >> >> spt >> >> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/ >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6066/ >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
