I don't think that this targets a particular class of device, or that it is appropriate to label it as such. Ideally, every implementation deploys this. If the RFC cites 7228 and points at C1 (for example), that potentially gives the impression that it is *only* for those things. That's not the intent. The intent is to avoid further fragmentation of the ecosystem.
That's just my prejudice though, I don't find these taxonomies to be especially helpful, other than in codifying design constraints. For this, I'd prefer the design constraint to be simply "could it run TLS". On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for your work on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit. I just requested > IETF last call, so that should start soon. The draft looks ready to > go, I'm just wondering if you could add in text into the introduction > to state the level of constrained device this is intended to help? > > If text is added, this can be addressed with an updated document after > all other IETF last call comments are addressed. I placed the > document on the March 8th telechat. > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > > _______________________________________________ > 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
