Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #111 (rfc6962-bis): Consider using the cached-info TLS extension

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:28:06 -0000

#111: Consider using the cached-info TLS extension

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] =>
     [email-masked]

Comment:

 Rob, assigning that to you as you originally suggested it.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc6962-bis              |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/111#comment:2>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:18:04 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Cached-info is still not an RFC.  Further delays...
 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/qBJf-aozr4eKIFcOXVDh85TcZZY

 Let's not block WGLC for 6962-bis on this ticket.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/111#comment:3>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:47:16 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * component:  rfc6962-bis => to-be-decided

Component:  to-be-decided            |     Version:

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/111#comment:4>
trans <https://tools.ietf.org/trans/>