On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 6:18 AM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ________________________________________ > From: OPSEC <[email protected]> on behalf of Ron Bonica > <[email protected]> > Sent: 05 June 2020 16:04 > To: OPSEC > Subject: [OPSEC] Call For Adoption: draft-camwinget-opsec-ns-impact > > Folks, > > This email begins a call for adoption on > draft-camwinget-opsec-ns-impact<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-camwinget-opsec-ns-impact/>. > The call for adoption will end on 6/19/2020. > > Support > > I would have liked this to be a TLS document but the fact that it is not > makes it even more important that it is adopted.
Actually, that raises an important point -- why is it *not* a TLS document? Are we wading into deep waters here? Did TLS object to this document, or just show no interest, or say "'tis a fine idea, but too operational for here, vaya con dios"? Can this CfA be CCed to the TLS WG so that we get more review? W > > Tom Petch > > Ron and Jen > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > OPSEC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
