On 2/11/15 1:21 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:
- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC
6347.
Personally I think that would be fine - I'm curious what the UTA WG
chairs and sponsoring AD (and perhaps TLS WG chairs) think about it.
I beg to differ. I think the whole intent of the document is to be a
"best practice" on how to use/deploy these protocols (TLS and DTLS),
rather than an attempt to modify them. To me, adding the "updates" would
imply that this needs to be Standards Track.
Thanks,
Yaron
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
