Hi,
We submitted a new version based on the comments received at IETF 119.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/SuKV6R_Xc7QlrHstqE-espDOWpE/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_YPAmOnqSPpw9wGDNokTpY9CepQ/
The technical conclusions were that larger records than 2^16 should be
supporte
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 10:08 AM Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:45 AM Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> On 9/4/24 17:23, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> > The
>> > current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT
>> > feedback to specific
* Starting a new subject to separate discussions on the FATT.
That’s sensible, thanks for doing this.
Let me try to answer your question this way. Here is how I view the timeline:
1. Chairs proposed a review panel
2. WG commented (my summary: consensus in favor of more analysis, disagr
On 9/4/24 18:03, Joseph Salowey wrote:
[Joe] As you say if all the reviewers are fine with being identified then
they could be identified in the usual manner. That is not the situation we
are in right now.
Perhaps fixing that would be a good next step then? I.e. maybe
try see if a panel can
* [Joe] As you say if all the reviewers are fine with being identified then
they could be identified in the usual manner. That is not the situation we are
in right now.
You might want to remind the reviewers not to publish their reviews by
themselves, as it could expose those who didn’t pu
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:45 AM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 9/4/24 17:23, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> > The
> > current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of
> FATT
> > feedback to specific individuals.
>
> That "does not allow" seems odd to me. Say if all review
Hi Joe,
On 9/4/24 17:23, Joseph Salowey wrote:
The
current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT
feedback to specific individuals.
That "does not allow" seems odd to me. Say if all reviewers are fine
with being accountable in the usual IETF manner, are you saying
Hi Rich,
Starting a new subject to separate discussions on the FATT.
Please understand that we are working though defining the process here. The
current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT
feedback to specific individuals. Perhaps we may be able to adjust this in
Since this is correctly marked as “Editorial” are there any objections to
changing the state to “Hold For Document Update”?
spt
> On Aug 23, 2024, at 18:18, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I don't think this is an erratum. I agree it would be better, but I don't
> think that rises to "error".
>
> -
Thanks to the authors for updating the I-D to address the nits I noted while
doing the Shepherd write-up. I will finish the Shepherd write-up and then this
I-D can progress with the draft-ietf-tls-esni.
spt
> On Sep 3, 2024, at 19:19, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> Internet-Draft draft-
10 matches
Mail list logo
