Subject: Re: [TLS] Recommended yes->no for max_fragment_length extension?
From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
To: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF TLS <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:37:48 -0500
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>

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 <[email-masked]> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls