On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Shumon Huque wrote:
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).
There is not much point in doing this, as everyone can "change their mind" later when this document's process has completed. In other words, it won't make me feel any better if no one objects now, unless the chairs would make it a discussion to update the TLS charter to add this work item. And even then, the more inevitable this new work item becomes, the more sense it makes to add the two bytes now to avoid more "designed by committee" weirdness like one extention mandating another extension and figuring out what it means if the mandating-extension itself vanishes. Our two byte proposal is technically sound. Paul _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
