I think changing the Intended Status is all we’re looking. spt
> On May 29, 2018, at 21:05, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The thought occurs, do you want a version with the final version number in > it? I see that TLS 1.3 is in front of the RFC editor right now, so I don't > anticipate any changes and changing the examples creates a lot of churn > (check out the diffs on this draft to get an idea). > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:35 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > >>> On May 8, 2018, at 20:30, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:56 AM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: >>>> I dislike standard, and am fine with Informational or BCP. >>> >>> Agree regarding standard. >>> >>> I don't understand why BCP would be used for this. Besides, we probably >>> don't want to enshrine some of the choices we made in NSS as "best >>> practice". I'm not saying that those choices aren't defensible, but > that >>> might be going too far. > >> Since this draft is really about “examples” (i.e., it’s just for > illustration), I’m going to suggest that Martin go ahead and merge the > following PR that I submitted changing the intended status: >> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-vectors/pull/6 > >> Once a new version is spun, I’ll push the draft toward Ben. > >> spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
