Ack, that makes it easier for me :) On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:22 AM Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think changing the Intended Status is all we’re looking. > spt > > On May 29, 2018, at 21:05, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> On May 8, 2018, at 20:30, Martin Thomson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:56 AM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
