On 2/11/15 1:36 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
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.
Yaron, you are correct and I typed without thinking. We had several
conversations about this point in the WG and with the Gen-ART reviewer
and always came to the conclusion that this documet does not in fact
*update* the protocol specifications (although it would be appropriate
for those who implement and deploy TLS and DTLS to familiarize
themselves with these best practices).
My apologies for the confusion.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
