Re: [TLS] Recommended yes->no for max_fragment_length extension?

I misread the question.  You are right, is should be "No".

Russ

> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:56 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is about the OLD extension.  I think that NO is appropriate for
> something we deprecate.
> 
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/14
> 
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:37 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> If the WG is going to publish the standards track RFC, then the extension it defines should say 'Yes' in the recommended column.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:33 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Prior to pushing draft-ietf-tls-record-limit [0] to the IESG, the WG needs to confirm that draft-ietf-tls-record-limit should change max_fragment_length [1] from “Yes” in our soon to be created Recommended column (see [2]) to a “No”.  Please indicate by 2359 UTC on 14 Feb whether you are for or against this change; and if you are against please indicate why.
>>> 
>>> spt
>>> 
>>> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/
>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6066/
>>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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