On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 6:31 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As I mentioned in a previous message, at least one person has > suggested that *instead* the authors withdraw the document from the WG > and ask the Independent Submissions Editor to publish it. That > outcome would be a non-IETF Informational RFC, but that is > not what we are discussing doing here. > Yes, and since this one is informational and short (and not bad!), it's something I'm not willing to fight about in the sense of appeals and all that. But why it isn't an ISE submission is a mystery to me. We do have those, e.g.: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9150 So, the *only* thing here is getting "IETF consensus" stamped on it. That's a tough call. There's lots of people we don't usually hear from. That can be OK, some people are mostly read-only participants. Here, we definitely got a little bit of astroturf on both sides of the issue, though. Calls to action on blog posts, social media trainwrecks, etc. I'm glad I don't have to deal with that. I just think the document should go to the ISE and I don't support the notion that it represents IETF consensus. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
