+1
From: Uta [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Andrews Sent: 08 December 2014 15:33 To: Ralph Holz; Salz, Rich Cc: [email protected]; Brian Smith Subject: Re: [Uta] (extra) WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-07.txt Still, I wouldn’t remove the discussion of CRLs. It’s possible that they will prove better than alternatives in some IoT applications. From: Ralph Holz [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 6:49 PM To: Salz, Rich Cc: [email protected]; Brian Smith Subject: Re: [Uta] (extra) WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-07.txt I +1 that - discussing CRLs is like rearranging the deck chairs on RMS Titanic, as PG once put it. Talking about delta CRLs seems rather esoteric, too. On 3 December 2014 at 13:25, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: I agree that we don't want to spend lots of time discussing CRL's and variants since we're staying they don't work well. -- Principal Security Engineer, Akamai Technologies IM: [email protected] Twitter: RichSalz _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
