Hi D. J. Bernstein, # TL;DR:
Without taking any position on the rest of the items: for clarity in Sec. 1 where my name is mentioned, please s/withdrawn/addressed as I mentioned in [0].
# Details:In the last paragraph of Sec. 1, it is mentioned that my objection was /withdrawn/, I would like to clarify the following:
I believe the formal semantics of /withdrawn/ can be different from those of /addressing/ an objection. Like, an objection can be /withdrawn/ /-- / due to several non-technical reasons -- /without/ being technically /addressed/.
While you are right that my objection was outstanding at the time of declaration of 'consensus,' it was later /addressed/ by John's substantial technical response as I mentioned in my email [0] on 06.05. and I have no outstanding technical objection on the subject draft. 'No opinion' remains my current position. I am sorry I have been swinging my positions a few times as new technical evidence was presented during the WGLC, which may have caused confusion. It was a difficult decision.
Thank you. Best regards, -Usama [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2PaKlc39PEgtBfelvzM7pjCZa9s/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
