Hi,

I think this WG is a bit zombie-like. Its most recent milestones are from
2013 [1].

I favor rejecting all active drafts (although I can see value in publishing
them via the ISE), and closing this WG.

thanks,
Rob

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsec/about/

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:41 AM Eric Wang (ejwang) <ejwang=
[email protected]> wrote:

> As authors we appreciate all the constructive comments on the draft.
> Based on the feedback, we will revise the scope of the document to cover
> “plain” TLS proxy only (removing “selective proxying”).  We will circulate
> a new revision when it is ready.
>
> Best,
> -Eric (on behalf of the authors)
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One thing to add here: the chairs would like to hear active and
> explicit support of the adoption. So please speak up if you believe
> the draft is useful and the WG shall work on getting it published.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:35 AM Ron Bonica
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> This email begins a Call For Adoption on draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp.
>
>
>
> Please send comments to [email protected] by August 3, 2020.
>
>
>
>                                                                Ron
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
>
>
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to