Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #122 (rfc6962-bis): TLS server requirements

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:34:24 -0000

#122: TLS server requirements

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => review

Comment:

 That makes no sense to me - without defining how CT data is communicated,
 CT can't be used at all.

 Suggest resolve as wontfix.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  review
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/122#comment:1>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:54:12 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => wontfix

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-trans-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:  review
Component:  rfc6962-bis  |     Version:
 Severity:  -            |  Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/122#comment:2>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:34:08 -0500

Ben,

The issue was that 6962-bis does a partial job of describing TLS server 
behavior,
and that one way to fix this is to remove that description and provide a 
more
complete description in a separate doc. Your comment does not address 
this concern,
and I disagree with Paul's decision to accept your proposed wontfix 
resolution.

Steve

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 15:24:45 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Stephen Kent wrote:

> The issue was that 6962-bis does a partial job of describing TLS server behavior,
> and that one way to fix this is to remove that description and provide a more
> complete description in a separate doc. Your comment does not address this concern,

Writing a separate document is fine, but out of scope for the bis
document.

Removing text in the bis document and moving it all to a separate document
that becomes a blocking normative reference to the bis document is not.

If you have proposed text that improves this section of the bis document,
please share so we can discuss that.

Paul

> _______________________________________________
> Trans mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
>