On 14/12/2020 14:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 10/11/2020 11:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 10/11/2020 11:30, tom petch wrote:
Perhaps a second look at the algorithm
to work out why these got missed to get a fix on how many more there may be.
Sure, that's reasonable. (Mightn't be today.)
Just did that check by comparing [1] to the RFCs
referenced in the draft and best I can see only
5953 and 6353 were missing in the end.
I'd argue it's ok to add those without re-doing
the IETF LC as they were mentioned in early on,
in the LC, but of course that's the AD's call.
I'm doing the edits for draft-10 now so it'll
pop out shortly.
Stephen
Thank you for checking. With those two being SNMP
and having both DTLS and TLS I was thinking of
conspiracy theories but no:-)
I should see the announcement of the updated I-D
and will check it when I do.
Like you, I do not see the need for a further LC
just for the addition of those two RFC,
Tom Petch
Cheers,
S.
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4347/referencedby/
Cheers,
S.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
