On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org>

> > 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?  And the time to get that
> second
> extension would effectively delay the publication of a usable protocol.
> The protocol as described prohibits denial of existence responses.  Willem
> acknowledged (thus far in an off-list message) that that's an oversight
> that
> should be corrected, and such a correction is the substance of option (A).

It would be good to get clarity on this. My understanding is that option a
recommending (at some unspecified level) that people provide those
not just making it possible for them to do so.

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to