David A. Cooper <david.cooper=40nist....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes: >It would also be inappropriate to adopt it as a WG document, especially as a >standards track document,
I was thinking more informational. Actually I'm not too fussed over what category it's in, as long as it gets out of its current limbo. >It would be contrary to the goal of this draft to suggest that those who have >been using it since 2016 should not modify their implementations to align >with changes made by the WG. It was put on hold so as not to interfere with the TLS 1.3 process (and then admittedly I forgot to un-hold it afterwards). It seems like you're saying that doing what the WG requested now makes it ineligible for consideration by the WG. Another point is that it's been around for eight years, it's not like people haven't had more than enough opportunity to comment on it and suggest changes in that time. The current late-to-the-party response seems to be mostly a chorus of "I haven't read it but I know I don't like it". Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
