On 25/02/2026 21:50, Salz, Rich wrote:
You misunderstand what “addressed” means here. A perfectly
reasonable response is “the issue has been discussed by the WG and
they still want to move forward.” As another recent example, the
LAMPS WG went ahead even though one participant (repeatedly:) raised
patent concerns.


Despite me not wanting to see this document published, Rich is correct
here. There are always judgement calls required and one participant
being convinced there's a fatal flaw in something is not sufficient
in itself to block that thing. If a participant convinces others of
the fatality of the flaw, that may be different, but if something is
generally contentious, (as in this case), a claim of a fatal flaw
by itself blocks nothing.

Cheers,
S.

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to