Note that I hope that we don’t need to present in Korea. My opinion is that this process mumbo jumbo is important (to some), but I don’t think it should occupy the group’s f2f time. But, it still needs review so please do and provide comments either here or via a PR.
spt > On Oct 22, 2016, at 10:30, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per > discussions at WG meetings and on the list. As they've > done the initial work, but are WG chairs, they wanted > me (as responsible AD) to call consensus for it. (They > wrote this up as finding authors for such fairly boring > stuff was hard - thank them for taking one for us all > when you see 'em:-) > > Based on the earlier discussions and limited mails on > this draft, I do think there's consensus to adopt this > approach and that the text in the I-D [1] is a good > enough starting point for the WG. > > If you think otherwise, please comment to the list in > the next week. > > If you've questions about all this from a process-crap > POV, feel free to ask those on or off the list as you > think appropriate;-) > > Note that if this is adopted as a WG item, the chairs > might decide to continue as editors or recruit someone > else. In the former case, I'm fine with doing the WGLC > stuff when this is ready (which it nearly is IMO, so > there may or may not be a need for new authors, depends > on what the WG think of the text I'd guess). > > Cheers, > S. > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01 > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
