Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks a lot for the write-up! Keeping IANA accurate and up-to-date, especially from a security perspective, is definitely important. On the topic of whether this should be a -bis or marked as obsoletes, I’m honestly not sure what the best approach is. That said, since the new text is quite different from the original, it doesn’t feel like a traditional -bis to me. Personally, I’d lean more toward marking it as obsoletes. However, it looks like the current direction has WG consensus, as reflected in the shepherd’s write-up. While it’s a bit unusual, I don’t see a strong reason to block progress on that basis, so I’m happy to let it move forward as is. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
