On 19 February 2014 16:14, Chris Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does anyone (and that includes the authors) object to relaxing the >> requirements in section 2.7, so that the choice of when the static pins are >> believed to have been observed is left to the implementer? If not, we'll >> resolve it that way. > > I don't object; I like that well enough.
Seconded/Thirded/Fourthed -tom _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
