> On Jan 24, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > this change rather removed the restriction to not analyze features of > security protocols (other than tcpinc); this is mainly the first sentence. As > we see a closer integration of TLS with QUIC and we in general think that > security features are important, it is actually an important change to allow > us to do some additional work in this space.
I had read that to just move the restriction not to work on security into the “out of scope” section above, but I can see that there could be a difference between “won’t work on security protocols” and “won’t analyze the features of security protocols”. Were those statements intended to prohibit substantially different things? > > Mirja > > On 24.01.2018 04:42, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-taps-01-00: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Do I read correctly that the only change from the previous charter is to >> remove >> the paragraph about coordinating with TCPINC? If so, I'm not sure that change >> is important enough to justify rechartering, but I won't get in the way if >> other people agree with it. >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
