Thought this one should be run past the working group: should a description of the implications of clients not doing certain optional checks be moved to the threat analysis draft?
Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #55 (rfc6962-bis): Security Considerations: Describe the implications of clients *not* doing certain optional checks Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: [email protected] Resent-To: [email protected] Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:53:51 -0000 From: trans issue tracker <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected] #55: Security Considerations: Describe the implications of clients *not* doing certain optional checks Changes (by [email protected]): * milestone: => review Comment: I presume this should become part of the threat analysis I-D. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-trans- [email protected] | [email protected] Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: review Component: rfc6962-bis | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/55#comment:2> trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/> _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
