From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Sent: 15 September 2022 20:57
<tp2> My ever helpful webmail just changed the layout, without warning, to make it much harder to use so while the content of my replies does not change, where they go may be somewhat random - currently I have 80 options but no send button <tp> RFC6614 is a Normative Reference. This is Experimental and is TLS1.2 only JMC> Good point. I donβt think it needs to be normative for implementation of this work. <tp2> I was thinking that the IESG will complain at TLS being only 1.2, be it Informative or Normative. I think that the TLS WG have created a mire with TLS1.3 being so different that adoption will be very slow so the real world of Enterprise will see 1.2 as a MUST while the IESG sees 1.2 as NOT RECOMMENDED as we will be here for some time to come. (A bit like IPv4 and IPv6:-( Lots of mentions of TBAn with n from three to seven with 'see section 6.2' where there is no mention of them. JMC> I saw those, too and almost commented. I think Qin may have mentioned it. Instead of reusing the TBAs, the authors used Section numbers in the IANA considerations. Using them as well would add clarity. <tp2> But are TBA3 et al. meant to be assigned by IANA? If so , IANA should be told (good as IANA are as interpreting our sloppy work). Tom Petch Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
