Since this happened to cross my inbox, I want to reiterate that, in my
view, this document has not been properly reviewed by the TLS WG. As the
shepherd's writeup notes, previous reviews in the TLS group raised some
significant concerns about whether this draft's approach is advisable.
I would en
Hi Ben,
I re-looked into the discussion in the TLS WG mailing list and we have
addressed all the comments raised by the WG members.
The issues raised by the TLS WG and addressed in the draft are:
(a) We added Section 6 to explain the rules to processing the MUD (D)TLS
rules to handle ossificatio
Thanks for addressing these issues, Tiru. To confirm that this document
now reflects IETF consensus, I think it would be logical to send it to the
TLS WG (noting those changes) and confirm that it now has consensus there.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:07 AM tirumal reddy wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I re-lo
