Hi Martin, Thanks for your response. I just wanted to check on this and not hold up the draft in the process. Thanks for also addressing Jim's question.
Best regards, Kathleen On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
