Thanks for finding this, Martin. Your fix looks good, and while it does change the text, I think it states what we meant all along ;-)
David On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:29 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund= [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
