On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> > > On Apr 28, 2018, at 12:26 PM, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So moving this feature into a new optional > > extension (both the pinning field and a description of the associated > > behavior) appears to me to be the past of least resistance. > > I wish I could be confident that such a specification would > be allowed to move forward. My fear is that the same visceral > opposition to DANE and DNSSEC would play out, and so I may as > well try to get past these now. > I would like to explore this. Is there anyone in the working group who would oppose such a new spec moving forward? (Maybe the WG chairs need to ask this question officially). Shumon
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
