[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-tls
Subject:    Re: [TLS] Proposed text for dnsssec chain extension draft
From:       Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane () dukhovni ! org>
Date:       2018-04-26 16:06:45
Message-ID: BE93A96D-8A91-4B0F-A43E-060341E977D2 () dukhovni ! org
[Download RAW message or body]



> On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 
> This discussion would probably be a lot more productive if you were
> able to have it without accusing other participants of acting in bad
> faith.

[ Well the objections do seem rather hypothetical, and the thing being
  objected to (a 16-bit reserved field) so minimally objectionable, that
  it is   perplexing why it is so important to avoid reaching a compromise
  by   allowing the 2-byte to be added.  Indeed it sure looks like the
  separate document that might define the follow-on extension would
  be strongly opposed in any form by those opposing the reserved 2 bytes,
  but I'd be thrilled to learn of your support in principle for such a
  document, perhaps you'd even be willing to author (or co-author) the
  initial draft? ]

I rather like Paul's point that the lifetime of support for
this extension belongs with this extension.  Adding an extension to
signal ongoing support for another extension rather unnatural.

-- 
	Viktor.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]