On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:18 PM Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:02 PM > > To: David Benjamin <[email protected]>; Roman > > Danyliw <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; The > IESG > > <[email protected]>; tls-chairs <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [TLS] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on > draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: > > (with COMMENT) > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, at 07:44, David Benjamin wrote: > > > That clause was meant to be descriptive of the other bits of the > > > document. "[Such-and-such] may not be [such-and-such]ed, so [some > > > consequence of this]". Using "must not" reads odd to me: "GREASE > > > values must not be negotiated, so they do not directly impact the > > > security of TLS connections." > > > > Perhaps what you are looking for is "cannot": "GREASE values cannot be > > negotiated, ..." > > A "cannot" would make sense to me. > "cannot" it is! :-) David
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
