On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:07 AM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: >> This email starts the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact , >> Impact of TLS 1.3 to Operational Network Security Practices, >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact/.
> <tp> > OPPOSE (yes, I am shouting) > > This is nowhere near ready and putting it forward so soon is ... well > ludicrous comes to mind. > > After WG adoption, comments were made to which there was no acknowledgement, > no response, I was about to oppose the adoption of the other I-D from these > authors on the grounds that until they respond to comments nothing else > should happen because when they do there are more comments waiting to be > aired. I am still of that view. Sorry, it's partially my fault. I did explicitly ask the authors to address your comments and submit a new version. I should have double-checked that the new version incorporates the feedback. Dear authors, would you be able to address Tom's comments ASAP so the new revision can be reviewed during the WGLC? > I do see that a revised I-D has just appeared in among the thousand or so I-D > that appear around the time of an IETF meeting, a timing that I sometimes > think is designed to let it slip through unnoticed. Given all those other > I-D - silly authors - it may be more than three weeks before I get my > thoughts together. Just to clarify: would you prefer not to have the WGLC around IETF weeks at all? -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
