>> Stephen, the opposite PoV is equally valid. There was no consensus in
>> Prague NOT to work on the topic. The mood of the room was evenly
>> divided.
>
> To clarify, this isn't voting. If there's no agreement in
> either direction there's no agreement (and I hope the default
> in the IETF is not that in the absence of agreement, work
> goes forward). The problem is how to come to agreement, and
> what that typically involves is refining the proposal to
> address objections.
The Prague discussion was about draft-green-... Nick Sullivan summarized four
concerns with that approach. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg>
draft-rhrd-... addresses all four of these concerns. We had some discussion on
the mail list, which lead to -01 being posted.
I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach. I would like to
find out.
Russ
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
