Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-flags

This WGLC is now complete. Based on its outcome and past discussions, the chairs believe there is consensus to move forward. There was one important question raised during the WGLC around behavior when receiving unsolicited flags. We will work with the author to prepare a change that addresses this concern, as well as other editorial comments raised during the WGLC. If normative language changes as a result, we will do a brief consensus call on the changes before requesting publication.

Best,
Chris, for the chairs

On Sun, Aug 1, 2021, at 11:50 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I think that this is largely good.
> 
> I don't like how the IANA registry is structured and would like to 
> discuss it more.  I think that it is 0-31 (Standards Action), 32+ 
> (Specification Required), but it doesn't say that.  I think that the 
> experimental range (64-79) should not be reserved.  That's relatively 
> valuable space that is being effectively burned forever.  It is also 
> highly dependent on judgment of experts, which gives those experts far 
> more say in the use of the registry than is typical.
> 
> (It also says that the registry is initially empty in S2, but it then 
> defines a flag.)
> 
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2021, at 09:55, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > This is the second working group last call for the "A Flags Extension 
> > for TLS 1.3" draft, available here:
> > 
> >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags/
> > 
> > Please review this document and send your comments to the list by July 
> > 30, 2021. The GitHub repository for this draft is available here:
> > 
> >     https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Chris, on behalf of the chairs
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 