On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 21 May 2018 15:47:37 CEST Ion Larranaga Azcue wrote: > > I would say it's unfair to expect other people to diagnose the problem by > > claiming "that information was all that was available" because you had > > access to: > > > > - traffic dumps of the failing handshakes > > - traffic dumps of working handshakes > > - the possibility to try any number of modifications of the client hello > to > > go from a working handshake to a failing handshake in order to identify > the > > offending option or parameter - as you are going to have to ask the > server > > side to activate extended alerts, you can ask them for server logs, as > well > > as traffic dumps of (at least) the failed connections on their side (if > > they receive any, which is additional information) > > > > Besides, I also think it's not fair to claim that when someone disagrees, > > you are being "shouted down". From what I remember, both sides expressed > > their opinion, and if you manage to gather consensus your draft will get > > published. So, I think accusing others of shouting you down is an > > unfortunate phrase on your side... > > you need consensus for Informational RFCs? that's news to me... > You need consensus for WG documents in general, though not necessarily for Informational RFCs through other channels. With that said, once https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/ is published, it will not be necessary to have an RFC at all for a code point registration. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
