On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > If this is indeed about adding [goo], what prevents Viktor or Paul > > from proposing a new addition to the protocol in the form of a new I-D > > that enacts the changes they wish to see? > > Why publish a crippled specification that needs immediate amendments that > would > require a second parallel extension to be defined and used by clients and > servers > to fix the issues in the current specification? And the time to get that > second > extension would effectively delay the publication of a usable protocol. > > The protocol as described prohibits denial of existence responses. Willem > acknowledged (thus far in an off-list message) that that's an oversight > that > should be corrected, and such a correction is the substance of option (A). > It would be good to get clarity on this. My understanding is that option a involved recommending (at some unspecified level) that people provide those responses, not just making it possible for them to do so. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
