Hi all, On 24 Jan 2019, at 23:41, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> As I have always understood it, "spec required" means a > published, stable, readily-accessible, etc., specification. > Not necessarily an RFC but, until the definition of an I-D is > changed to eliminate all of the "don't reference except as 'work > in progress'" and "expires in six months" stuff, it would be > unusual (and objectionable) for posting a spec as an I-D to > qualify. > > The TLS expert group, in agreement with the Security AD's, did exactly this. > Start your objections. :) I don’t think there is universal agreement with IESG that I-Ds qualify. So you might need to talk to your AD ;-). Best Regards, Alexey _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
