On 12/05/2025 14:02, Michael Richardson wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst<[email protected]> wrote:
> For my side, I will be happy to clear my DISCUSS when the text explains
the
> current relationship to draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13, and I think you may
> already have the thoughts behind that above. I am looking forward to a
text
> proposal.
You want me to explain in BRSKI-PRM, which updates RFC8995, why RFC8995 is
completely compliant with the intention of uta-require-tls13, but is not
apparently consistent with the text, because uta-require-tls13 uses BCP14
keywords
incorrectly?
--
Michael Richardson<[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
Please go ahead and try to explain why this RFC-to-be that will appear
after/with uta-require-tls is arriving at a different conclusion.
Thanks,
Gorry
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
