On Sat, 2 May 2026, Eric Rescorla wrote:
My opinion of this document remains largely unchanged: I do not think it is a good basis for contemplating revisions to the FATT process. I also don't think it's a good use of energy -- either yours or the WG's -- to continue to debate and/or refine specific points in this document at this time.
I agree.
As David Benjamin said earlier, It's possible that a much skinnier document that was *just* about refining the process of WG communication with the FATT would be worth pursuing, but I'd first want to see some significant enthusiasm from other WG members and especially existing FATT members.
Additionally, there is no RFC on how the FATT is currently working, and so I see no value in an RFC that updates how it is working. It is up to the TLS Chairs and the WG consensus to update https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt Writing an opinion in draft form does not give one the right to keep asking for the draft topic to be discussed. Paul _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
