I agree with Ekr that the two things should be kept separate. In
addition, may I also suggest to keep this thread only for discussion
about #1, please? In this thread, the chairs are asking a simple
question, namely:
On 23.08.24 19:30, Joseph Salowey wrote:
Please respond to the list with a brief reason why you think the
document requires formal analysis or not.
For issues/recommendations about #2, please use the thread where the
process was actually proposed.
Thanks,
Usama
On 25.08.24 22:54, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Let's try to disentangle two questions:
1. Whether we should require this document to have some sort of formal
analysis prior to advancing
2. Whether the feedback from the triage panel should be handled in
some other way
I don't have a strong opinion on (2), but I don't see that the answer
to (1) turns on that. Rather, it turns on whether you think that this
is a significant enough change with unclear enough properties that we
should develop higher confidence before advancing it at PS. Is your
position that that's not the case?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
