Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:57:34 -0700
From: Mark Nottingham <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+0166e4ab83742ec46c350db09af50ab42607ddf171f366b592cf0000000114e6f90d92a169ce0be7a2a5@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/134/287666034@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/134@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/134@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Certificate compression (#134)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_58cf370e397_32fb3f9b47745c301636be";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/PEd5JSZYA4zdFuVA9WUVyqYrpGA>

----==_mimepart_58cf370e397_32fb3f9b47745c301636be
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My take is that we have enough on our plate without defining this too; it can be introduced later with an extension or a new version if it's defined elsewhere. 

In particular, I'd be concerned that adding compression would trigger a need for a round of crypto review, and as discussed before, the TLS WG is better at getting that.

So, I'm inclined to think we should close this issue with no action -- provided that Martin can remove the requirement (how's that going?). 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/134#issuecomment-287666034
----==_mimepart_58cf370e397_32fb3f9b47745c301636be
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>My take is that we have enough on our plate without defining this too; i=
t can be introduced later with an extension or a new version if it's define=
d elsewhere.</p>
<p>In particular, I'd be concerned that adding compression would trigger a =
need for a round of crypto review, and as discussed before, the TLS WG is b=
etter at getting that.</p>
<p>So, I'm inclined to think we should close this issue with no action -- p=
rovided that Martin can remove the requirement (how's that going?).</p>

<p style=3D"font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mda=
sh;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<=
br />Reply to this email directly, <a href=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/bas=
e-drafts/issues/134#issuecomment-287666034">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a hr=
ef=3D"https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWbkqwZvfiHGWVf_2Ms=
0HArABBVcuC80ks5rnd0NgaJpZM4LfBKv">mute the thread</a>.<img alt=3D"" height=
=3D"1" src=3D"https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWbkq-3kHt5JVTRkwd4Xz=
2qItRE3SNNgks5rnd0NgaJpZM4LfBKv.gif" width=3D"1" /></p>
<div itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/EmailMessage">
<div itemprop=3D"action" itemscope itemtype=3D"http://schema.org/ViewAction=
">
  <link itemprop=3D"url" href=3D"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issu=
es/134#issuecomment-287666034"></link>
  <meta itemprop=3D"name" content=3D"View Issue"></meta>
</div>
<meta itemprop=3D"description" content=3D"View this Issue on GitHub"></meta>
</div>

<script type=3D"application/json" data-scope=3D"inboxmarkup">{"api_version"=
:"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"Gi=
tHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/quicwg/base-drafts","title":"quicwg=
/base-drafts","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://clou=
d.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290=
892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/asset=
s/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name=
":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts"}},"updates=
":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@mnot in #134: My take is that w=
e have enough on our plate without defining this too; it can be introduced =
later with an extension or a new version if it's defined elsewhere. \r\n\r\=
nIn particular, I'd be concerned that adding compression would trigger a ne=
ed for a round of crypto review, and as discussed before, the TLS WG is bet=
ter at getting that.\r\n\r\nSo, I'm inclined to think we should close this =
issue with no action -- provided that Martin can remove the requirement (ho=
w's that going?). "}],"action":{"name":"View Issue","url":"https://github.c=
om/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/134#issuecomment-287666034"}}}</script>=

----==_mimepart_58cf370e397_32fb3f9b47745c301636be--