I wasn't aware of previous discussion and decision on this already. Sorry for bringing this up. Proceed with the current draft.
On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, "Alan DeKok" <[email protected]> wrote: > Sam Hartman wrote: >> I think we discussed the flow in a fair bit of detail and I think we >> have consensus on the current flow including the lack of server telling >> the peer which channel binding attributes it supports. As an >> individual, I do not support opening that up again, although if there is >> WG consensus to make a change we should do so. > > I think there's been a lot of discussion on the document. We need to > get closure quickly. This means not re-opening issues which were > previously discussed and decided. > > Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
