On 2/20/15 1:43 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete
work on this document about best practices for TLS in
general, and to
initiate work on a separate document about opportunistic TLS.
No, I don't believe we've decided that UTA will be the place where
we develop a BCP on OS. [...]
I'd really really hope we disentangle that discussion from this
draft though, so please replace the last sentence with:
"The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete
work on this document about best practices for TLS in general, and to
for work on a separate BCP document about opportunistic security
to be done later."
FWIW:
- That text is not mine; it has been in since -07.
- I would personally be A-OK with UTA working on opportunistic TLS,
especially in the sense of providing advice on how to interop with old
stuff in ways most likely to result in TLS usage.
- It's probably not a great idea to say that in this document
How about:
"The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete work on this
document about best practices for TLS in general, and to leave
recommendations about opportunistic TLS for future work."
Or we could drop mention of the WG entirely:
"This document specifies best practices for TLS in general. A separate
document with recommendations for the use of TLS with opportunistic
security is to be completed in the future."
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
