> On Jun 2, 2025, at 11:25, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Roman Danyliw 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you to Susan Hares for the GENART review. > > ** Please harmonize these two elements of the text: > > (a) “Updates: 8447 (if approved)” (in the header) > > (b) “This document updates the following RFCs: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5705, > 5878, 6520, 7301, and 8447.” (in the abstract) > > Both are saying conflicting things about what is getting updated.
Mike caught the same thing. I changed the header but not the abstract. Fixed via: https://github.com/tlswg/rfc8447bis/pull/87 spt
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
