On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 16:46 Watson Ladd <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> How on earth would providing another incompatible set of suggestions help? No > matter what text was in there it would still raise the question of what > people should be doing. Hi Watson You may of course not believe that this is a problem or that it is not something that the working group needs to solve. I wouldn’t suggest starting with “another incompatible set of suggestions” unless you believe that the previous efforts were not useful(?). If you agree with the previous post from Yaron that there is a problem then it seems reasonable to come up with a proposal on how best to address the current lack of clarity. One way to do that is to incorporate updated text into the TLS-LTS draft, and any others that touch on TLS 1.2, making sure that it communicates clearly to implementers and others the relative positions of TLS 1.2, TLS-LTS and TLS 1.3 with reference RFC 9325 and any other relevant documents etc. Using this consistently from now on ought to help. There are other ways to address this problem if you agree that it needs to be addressed. Andrew
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
