> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-23: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > > ** Section 11 > TLS 1.3 requires implementations to support the Server Name > Indication (SNI) extension when used with applications capable of > using it (Section 9.2 of [RFC9846]). This profile does not change > that requirement. > > How could a profile “change that requirement” if the base spec requires > support?
Section 9.2 of RFC 9846 has text about "in the absence of an application profile standard specifying otherwise" that invites reiteration of what the requirements for this application profile are. -Ben _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
