Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 6:57 PM +0100 1/26/10, Martin Rex wrote:
>The two MUST NOTs that popped up in -03 are in violation of rfc2119 section 6!

...as are about half of all MUSTs and SHOULDs in modern IETF standards.

>Did anyone of you review the new sections in the -03 draft?

Yes.

>I do not think that rushing the document out of the door as-is
>would be a good idea.  This would set new lows for the level
>of IETF Proposed Standard.

This indicates that you need to read more standards-track RFCs, then.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]