Hi S. Moonesamy, On 26.04.26 02:26, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 04:33 PM 25-04-2026, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:I am not familiar with this term. I did a quick search but I don't find in IETF context.Here's an example of a review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Cuv72NQhs_04FlL6F7NL79gX5qc/
That seems like a typical directorate review. That's not what FATT does.
As Rob has kindly confirmed, 'design team' is the correct procedural thing here. I suggest to keep the discussion on terminology separate and focus on mechanism for contacting FATT in this thread. You are welcome to create an issue on github [0] on what you think is the right terminology, or take it up with chairs on a separate thread.More importantly, could you please elaborate your rationale behind distinguishing 'design team' or 'review group' for the purposes of my proposal? Unless I am missing some subtlety, it seems completely orthogonal to my proposal. So I will leave this for some senior for guidance.I looked for what might be a closer fit based on what I read in RFC 2418.
should be with the current process. Could you please clarify why this is an additional risk in my proposal compared to the current process?It's not about risk. It's about finding common ground.
Finding common ground with FATT, right? Question is how can I do that without contacting them?
Best regards, -Usama [0] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt/issues
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
