|
Procedurally, I don’t support http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-psk-null-03.txt
I think it should be slightly rewritten, declared to be a retrospective
"update" to [TLS-PSK]. This would
properly contextualize the material in the I-D, while achieving the stated
goal of the current I-D ("augment").
Consider this, and consider withdrawing it from the RFC Editor queue. The
adequacy of
the augmented ciphersuites (how many implementations, etc) can then
be evaluated as
the TLS-PSK gets evaluated in its own standards track
progress.
|
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls