On 7/4/18 6:33 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> I thought the authors wanted this done quickly, but lately they
> seem to be in no rush to get the document finished.
I'm still trying to figure out a way forward that's useful
for the people who intend to use this extension and that doesn't
add cruft or ambiguity. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to
be one, so compromise is necessary.
I also think there's been already been a pretty serious process abuse
here and tend to think that the new implication that we can go forward
in a timely way if everybody just agrees with you is additionally
problematic. But as I said earlier, I'll go along with the working
group consensus and will not block a decision I don't happen to like.
That's the implicit contract we sign with the IETF when we decide to
bring work here.
Melinda
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
