I have no pony in this race, but FWIW ~5 people on each side represents a lack of consensus. A lack of consensus means that the work doesn't happen in the working group.
Thomas, your response (sorry to pick on you!) illustrates another consensus issue: consensus exists when all technical objections have been addressed. Melinda made a pretty serious technical objection. Your response is not responsive to her objection. She explicitly said that her objection was not the two bytes. So from the perspective of consensus, it's as if you hadn't sent an email message—an accurate evaluation of consensus would not take what you said into account at all. On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:32 AM, Thomas Lund <thomas.lund+tlsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW: I support the changes proposed by Viktor and others. In particular, I > support reserving 2 bytes for which the semantics will be defined in a > separate draft. > For me, the advantages of this proposal outweighs the disadvantage of > having to reserve 2 bytes that might, in worst case, never get used. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
