Adoption should not be required to register a code point [0], as the policy is Specification Required.
I'm mildly negative on adopting this document. What is the reason we need to spend WG time on this, rather than just having a code point assignment? -Ekr [0] As an aside the IANA considerations of draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-13 should clearly have a policy which matches 8447 S 7, which is to say that an I-D is sufficient. On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:59 PM Christopher Patton <cpatton= 40cloudflare....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I'd like to see this problem solved. There was some discussion about > whether an I-D is needed or all we needed was to register a code point > somewhere. If most agree that an I-D is needed, then let's adopt it. I'm > happy to review. > > Chris P. > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:22 PM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > >> At the IETF 119 TLS session there was some interest in the mTLS Flag I-D ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jhoyla-req-mtls-flag/); also, see >> previous list discussions at [0]. This message is to judge consensus on >> whether there is sufficient support to adopt this I-D. If you support >> adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a >> message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this I-D, please >> send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close on 16 >> April 2024. >> >> Thanks, >> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >> >> [0] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9e2S95H9YgtHp5HhqdlNqmQP0_w/ >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
