On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:57:43AM -0700, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-grease/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sorry one more comment/question I forgot earlier: Why is this document > informational? Shouldn't it be at least experimental?
I added a note to the shepherd writeup's "intended document status" entry: AD NOTE: Note that this has been successfully deployed for over a year; it's not really an "experiment" anymore but rather a useful thing that people do, both in TLS and elsewhere. This is informational in the sense that "here is a thing you can do, and some information about why you might want to do it". There's no real protocol -- you send some codepoints and expect the other endpoint to not change behavior as a result -- so it doesn't make sense as a proposed standard. I suppose one could argue that it is a BCP since it is for the health of the ecosystem, but that does not really feel like a good match. So to me, Informational is the right status. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
