If the WG is going to publish the standards track RFC, then the extension it defines should say 'Yes' in the recommended column.
Russ > On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > All, > > Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs to > confirm that draft-ietf-tls-record-limit should change max_fragment_length > [1] from “Yes” in our soon to be created Recommended column (see [2]) to a > “No”. Please indicate by 2359 UTC on 14 Feb whether you are for or against > this change; and if you are against please indicate why. > > spt > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/ > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6066/ > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
