Hi, From my AD perspective I think it is good to fix this. Otherwise I am convinced that Ben or Roman (Sec ADs) anyway will react on it.
WG, please review the text proposal! Cheers Magnus On Thu, 2020-11-19 at 17:00 +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > I was just reviewing the applicability draft (Brian, Mirja, expect a PR > soon). I was surprised to see such a strong assertion regarding idempotence > in there. I followed the link to the TLS draft and found that the text there > was just wrong. Not badly wrong, but wrong in a way that conflicts with RFC > 8470. > > Now, I wrote both, so there is no excuse. But I'd like to be given a chance > to fix this. > > Issue: > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=98a27635-c7394f04-98a236ae-86e2237f51fb-afbf76956a17f6b0&q=1&e=a4325166-9081-4878-a243-c3db587fb5e3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fbase-drafts%2Fissues%2F4393 > Pull Request: > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d4333fd5-8ba806e4-d4337f4e-86e2237f51fb-56fc156292f3b52d&q=1&e=a4325166-9081-4878-a243-c3db587fb5e3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fquicwg%2Fbase-drafts%2Fpull%2F4394 > > This is a substantive change that better aligns the rules here with existing > work. > > Cheers, > Martin >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
