There were a few yeses and no nos. I”m going to go ahead and declare this rough consensus, with the thought that if there are those who object there is still time during the IETF LC.
Martin - please spin a new version incorporating PR#14 to address this issue. Once I see a new version I’ll push it towards Kathleen. spt > On Feb 7, 2018, at 15:33, 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
