Hi Tom,
Yes apologies as the latest version included comment responses from Kathleen
and Jason, but I omitted yours....which is coming soon.
Apologies for that omission, look for -02 coming soon....
Nancy
On 7/28/20, 9:08 AM, "TLS on behalf of tom petch" <[email protected] on
behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
From: OPSEC <[email protected]> on behalf of Jen Linkova
<[email protected]>
Sent: 28 July 2020 14:05
This email starts the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact ,
Impact of TLS 1.3 to Operational Network Security Practices,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact/.
Taking into account IETF108, the WGLC is extended to 3 weeks and ends
on Aug 18th, 23:59:59 UTC.
Please review the document and express your support or concerns/comments.
<tp>
OPPOSE (yes, I am shouting)
This is nowhere near ready and putting it forward so soon is ... well
ludicrous comes to mind.
After WG adoption, comments were made to which there was no
acknowledgement, no response, I was about to oppose the adoption of the other
I-D from these authors on the grounds that until they respond to comments
nothing else should happen because when they do there are more comments waiting
to be aired. I am still of that view.
I do see that a revised I-D has just appeared in among the thousand or so
I-D that appear around the time of an IETF meeting, a timing that I sometimes
think is designed to let it slip through unnoticed. Given all those other I-D
- silly authors - it may be more than three weeks before I get my thoughts
together.
Tom Petch
Thanks!
--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of the OpSec Chairs.
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
