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
