Making things more complicated with no obvious benefit just makes things more complicated.
I oppose adding two bytes for some nebulous future purpose. -Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James Cloos > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 6:20 PM > To: Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> > Cc: <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS DNSSEC chain consensus text, please speak up... > > >>>>> "TL" == Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> writes: > > TL> Melinda made a pretty serious technical objection. Your response is not > TL> responsive to her objection. She explicitly said that her objection was > TL> not the two bytes. > > I don't see anything in her note today which is a technical objection. > > And I've seen no useful or reasonable objections to Viktor's suggestion. > > The sixteen bit field harms no one, and when defined and used provides > significant benefit to many. > > -JimC > -- > James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6 > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
