Re: [kitten] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-14: (with DISCUSS)

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

I do not believe there was consensus one way or another on this.

The strong feedback was by one or two members of the TLS working group
and I do not believe it was correct or represented consensus. Unless
those people that complained *do* represent consensus among that working
group and intend to block publication of this document based on it (and
if they do, I wish they had said so earlier during the discussion and
not let the matter drop), I would like it to move forward with the
"updates" line in place if at all possible.

—Sam

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 14:43, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:41:36AM -0800, Martin Duke via
> Datatracker wrote:
>> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-
>> 14: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more
>> information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13/
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>
>> A simple thing: the document header should state that it updates
>> RFC 8446.
>
> No, it should not.
>
> This topic was discussed with the TLS WG and there was strong feedback
> that the use of the "Updates:" header was inappropriate.
>
> See the thread at
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vH74JoSGYpJv7Tcem60L3RtNa9U/
>
> -Ben

-- 
Sam Whited