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

Reply via email to