To clarify here, You can't have a reference here to " A "permanent" Design Group for TLS". That term is wrong and confusing.
I don't disagree with all of the rest, which has changed since the last round, but that does need to be fixed up. Maybe Rich doesn't want to update his draft, but that needs to be fixed. thanks, Rob On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think Rich should retitle his document to "A 'permanent' Design Team for > TLS", but then we can get on with it. > > The title is confusing because the first sentence is: > > "This memo defines a permanent design team, as defined in [WGPROCS]," > > That's a nit, but I think we want to be clear no process is actually being > invented (WGPROCS says you can do anything you want aside from all the > usual Note Well concerns). > > thanks, > Rob > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 7:34 AM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > >> There is an updated FATT available here: >> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt >> >> This has taken a lot of the feedback we have received so far, but is >> still a work in progress. There will be a little time to discuss in the >> meeting Friday. >> >> Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >> >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
