On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> > wrote: > > Because we'd pin only to the use of this extension, the TTL is > > sufficient. > > I explained in my response to Victor why this isn't so.
I don't accept that explanation. It's based on a strawman argument. > > > But this reinforces my point. I think we ought to have an enforce vs > > > test flag and a report URI (and I I don't find your arguments above > > > about why we shouldn't do this persuasive.) Standardizing this > > > functionality would require resolving these issues. > > > > Strawman. These are make-believe issues. Is it just to give the > > appearance that we couldn't possibly reach consensus on just two bytes? > > This discussion would probably be a lot more productive if you were able to > have it without accusing other participants of acting in bad faith. Sounds good to me. One way to make this more civil is to not make strawman arguments. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
