On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Stephen Kent wrote:
The issue was that 6962-bis does a partial job of describing TLS server
behavior,
and that one way to fix this is to remove that description and provide a more
complete description in a separate doc. Your comment does not address this
concern,
and I disagree with Paul's decision to accept your proposed wontfix
resolution.
Writing a separate document is fine, but out of scope for the bis
document.
Removing text in the bis document and moving it all to a separate document
that becomes a blocking normative reference to the bis document is not.
If you have proposed text that improves this section of the bis document,
please share so we can discuss that.
Paul
Steve
#122: TLS server requirements
Changes (by [email protected]):
* milestone: => review
Comment:
That makes no sense to me - without defining how CT data is
communicated,
CT can't be used at all.
Suggest resolve as wontfix.
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
