Nick, Ben, Great thanks - consider yourselves volunteered:-)
I'd say whack out a draft-laurie-tls-notgmt or whatever and see if the TLS WG like that as an update to 5246. If they don't dislike it but don't wanna care/process it we can ask if they don't mind if its AD sponsored and take it that route. Thanks, S. On 11/12/2013 03:12 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On 12 November 2013 14:55, Nick Mathewson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Stephen Farrell >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hiya, >>> >>> Way back in the mists of September there was a thread [1] >>> on this that seemed to have broad agreement that this was >>> a useful and quite doable change to TLS but I don't think >>> we currently have a clear owner to push it along in the >>> TLS WG. If everyone thinks someone else will get around to >>> doing this, it won't happen. >>> >>> Any takers? >> >> I'd be glad to lend my enthusiasm, time, and modest sticktoitiveness, >> but I'd need somebody with more experience working in WGs to help me >> with the process stuff. > > I can help with process stuff. > >> (An update on the topic: OpenSSL has merged my patches to randomize >> gmt_unix_time by default. I also wrote a patch to allow tlsdate, the >> one known user of gmt_unix_time that people mentioned, to support >> reading the time from HTTPS headers. That patch has also been merged.) >> >> yrs, >> -- >> Nick Mathewson >> _______________________________________________ >> perpass mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass > > _______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
