On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 04:40:25AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > >I don't really agree with that characterization. To state my understanding, > >as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in the > >RFC Editor's queue being processed. > > That was a process mistake. > > 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS > 2) other people raised issues in response > 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern > 4) document was placed in RFC Editor queue despite this > 5) TLS consensus call done on the list > 6) here we are.... > > I think it is not good to use this process as a way of approving things. > A process mistake was made.
Yes, though this consensus call cures that (and moots that grounds for appeal). However, since it's become clear that the I-D undeniably has a problem because it describes pinning behavior and lacks sufficient functionality for that -- we really must now make a change. IMO, the question is no longer whether to make changes, but which changes to make. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls