On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote: >> On Apr 12, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If this is indeed about adding [goo], what prevents Viktor or Paul >> from proposing a new addition to the protocol in the form of a new I-D >> that enacts the changes they wish to see? > > Why publish a crippled specification that needs immediate amendments that > would > require a second parallel extension to be defined and used by clients and > servers > to fix the issues in the current specification?
Three reasons: 1. It clears the current bind. 2. It's abundantly clear (to me at least) that there is no consensus that the specification is indeed crippled. 3. We build by increments all the time. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
