Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-13: 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 for your work on this. I think this will make the distinction between "types" of N clearer in the TLS registries. Two minor suggestions: First, pointers to the IANA registries in each section would be appreciated. Second, the abstract asserts that "This document updates the following RFCs: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5705, 5878, 6520, 7301, and 8447." However, the header states only that it updates RFC8447. I suspect the logic is that this document is updating the updates made by 8447, so that the "updated" 8447 makes different changes to the older documents. That seems needlessly complex; the header should reflect the documents to which this will make changes in practice. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
