On 21/07/15 08:50, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Eggert, Lars <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2015-7-21, at 09:23, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> - For TLS means a complete profile for TCPINC >> >> I thought we agreed on a complete, *self-contained* profile for TLS. >> Self-contained meaning one doc that someone can hand to their dev team >> which they can read without the need to consult (too many) other documents >> to understand what an implementation would entail. >> > > I don't recall that agreement. I know that some people were in favor of it, > but I think it's > a bad idea, and I don't think there was anything like consensus to do it.
+1 to ekr on that - I think an informed opinion on this topic does require IETFers to understand the work-in-progress that is TLS1.3. Whether an eventual RFC ought or ought not be self-contained is a question the WG can consider if the TLS approach is adopted. So I'd characterise the requirement for the TLS draft for this milestone as being that the draft needs to specify a complete profile, but need not necessarily be self-contained. S. > > -Ekr > > > > (In other words, not a document that says "read and understand all of TLS, >> and then ignore pieces X, Y and Z.) >> >> Lars >> _______________________________________________ >> Tcpinc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc > _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
