Paul,
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.
There is no need for 6962-bis document to cite a TLS server doc, if 6962-bis
focuses on CT log operation. You previously stated that 6962-bis cannot
be reduced in scope, but that turned out to not be true (based on any IETF
procedural constraints). So, moving the partial TLS server discussion to a
separate doc (e.g.,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kseo-trans-ca-subject/ is
a start on this) does not cause the problem you stated.
If you have proposed text that improves this section of the bis document,
please share so we can discuss that.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kseo-trans-ca-subject/ includes
text about TLS server requirements. It cites relevant sections of 6962-bis,
but it would be cleaner if these sections were either moved to that doc
or if they appeared in an appendix of 6962-bis.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
