seccons part of PR#492

[cabo]

No description provided.

[timbray]

Co-chair hat off: I am really unconvinced that this deserves this security-considerations coverage, since we've already been clear (and are clearer now) that any query can potentially yield empty result. But not lie-down-in-the-road mode.

Co-chair hat on: Unhappy about introducing substantive changes in the security considerations section at this stage in the process without WG input.

Going to shut up and see if any other voices want to pitch in.

[cabo]

We shipped -16 without this, as Tim's chair perspective on this definitely is convincing.
We might revive this later if we find we do need it.

[timbray]

Thanks.

…

On Jul 26, 2023 at 2:58:39 PM, cabo ***@***.***> wrote: We shipped -16 without this, as Tim's chair perspective on this definitely is convincing. We might revive this later if we find we do need it. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#493 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAEJEZPUTIJ22FNRPWQY2TXSGHI7ANCNFSM6AAAAAA2ZFCE4M> . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>

[cabo]

We didn't need it.