On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:33, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support this plan (with the expectation that the IANA "specification > required" rules take precedence over the informal text in this mail > about a "stable, publicly available, peer reviewed reference document", > as Yoav noted as a potential issue).
Technically, the “specification required” rules are the IETF’s [0][1], but yeah these rules win over this email thread all day everyday. spt [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5226/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis/ _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
