Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01

Note that I hope that we don’t need to present in Korea.  My opinion is that this process mumbo jumbo is important (to some), but I don’t think it should occupy the group’s f2f time.  But, it still needs review so please do and provide comments either here or via a PR.

spt

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 10:30, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per
> discussions at WG meetings and on the list. As they've
> done the initial work, but are WG chairs, they wanted
> me (as responsible AD) to call consensus for it. (They
> wrote this up as finding authors for such fairly boring
> stuff was hard - thank them for taking one for us all
> when you see 'em:-)
> 
> Based on the earlier discussions and limited mails on
> this draft, I do think there's consensus to adopt this
> approach and that the text in the I-D [1] is a good
> enough starting point for the WG.
> 
> If you think otherwise, please comment to the list in
> the next week.
> 
> If you've questions about all this from a process-crap
> POV, feel free to ask those on or off the list as you
> think appropriate;-)
> 
> Note that if this is adopted as a WG item, the chairs
> might decide to continue as editors or recruit someone
> else. In the former case, I'm fine with doing the WGLC
> stuff when this is ready (which it nearly is IMO, so
> there may or may not be a need for new authors, depends
> on what the WG think of the text I'd guess).
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls