On 14/12/2020 16:36, tom petch wrote:
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, indeed, it had popped while I was replying to your e-mail.
I see RFC5953, RFC6353 have been added. RFC5953 is obsoleted so should
it be listed in 1.1 in the list of RFC already obsoleted, the one that
start with RFC5101?
Tom Petch
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
