On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 03:01:34PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Shumon Huque wrote: > > [ not going to repeat my technical arguments here, just going to comment > on process ] > > >First, there is no agreement that your reason for doing pinning, > >i.e. that DANE needs downgrade resistance against PKIX attacks > >is even valid. > > This is incorrect. From the replies to the consensus call on the list, > it actually weights in favour of _some_ kind of downgrade resistance. > > In fact, it worries me that the consensus call outcome seems to come > from non-public voices and not from a tally of those participants on > the TLS list.
Given that this mail is framed as just a process comment, and even though you rightly refer to "technical merits" in a later (trimmed) portion, I must object to the use of "tally of those participants on the TLS list". "Tallying participants" implies counting votes, but of course the person making the consensus call is charged with using their technical judgment to assess the replies received on the merits. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
