Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
To: mrex at sap.com, tls at ietf.org
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:15:11 -0800
In-reply-to: <201001261757.o0QHvOXd024945 at fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <201001261757.o0QHvOXd024945 at fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
  - From: Martin Rex

References:
- Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus about one draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
  - From: Martin Rex

Prev by Date: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus about one draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
Next by Date: Re: Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
Previous by thread: Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus about one draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
Next by thread: Re: Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.