On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 04:21:56PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 3:08 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My skepticism is entirely a function of this being a late breaking > > > [...] > > > > What is late breaking to you? > > > > The change was proposed during WGLC. If before or during WGLC is too > > late, when is it not too late? At WG work item adoption call? > > It depends on the relative size of the change and the importance of > the issue. An important central issue that went completely unnoticed:
Thanks. I agree about the relative size of the change, how substantial it might be, and how necessary it might be. > > > [...] > > > > Right, but this is where the "Postfix architecture" issue comes in. I'm > > having a conversation with him about this. Viktor might be confused > > about the CoW properties of LMDB, but in any case, the wire bandwidth > > waste and server compute waste issues have nothing to do with Postfix's > > architecture/design/implementation. > > Tickets are small and issuance is cheap. Where are the *hard numbers* > to back up the assertions being made that ticket reuse is an important > savings? How small they are appears to be in question. See Viktor's post. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
