On 19/02/14 22:48, Tom Ritter wrote: > 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
<no hat> I agree. Thirded Cheers, Tobias > > -tom > > _______________________________________________ > websec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
