Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!
"Dan Harkins" <email@example.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 16:59 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B308E1A7035 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([22.214.171.124]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SUMLNAjeS3f for <email@example.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [126.96.36.199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621D01A6EFB for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53BD10224008; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 188.8.131.52 (SquirrelMail authenticated user email@example.com) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:59:47 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Watson Ladd <email@example.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:59:49 -0000
On Tue, January 27, 2015 8:42 am, Watson Ladd wrote: > Does anyone have any security objection to what's in the original TLS > draft? > > So why can't the TLS WG proceed with it? > > Are we seriously going to spend another month (if we're lucky!) > arguing about endianness? > > This is a catastrophe we should be sure not to repeat at higher > security levels by making rules and having a competition as opposed to > go play a game of Calvinball. > > If we can't expeditiously answer basic questions in a reasonable > timeframe, people are going to avoid asking those questions. And they > are going to be worse off for it. The CFRG was sorely underutilized in > the past: I don't see any reason why a IETF WG would ask us anything > now. -1 We are answering basic questions, you just don't like the answers. > A month ago I accused the chairs of continuing the farce. That was too > nice: it's a full-blown fiasco now. And I don't see any plans to avoid > it in the future. A year later, and we have a starting point with > unspecified future changes being considered, and arguments that popped > up over that year, coming back to life. Apparently your naiveté has finally been confronted with reality. Last year I told you it would take something like 2 years to get an RFC published. You said no, it should only take 30 minutes. This is how sausage gets made. Dan.
- [Cfrg] Enough already! Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Enough already! Dan Harkins
- Re: [Cfrg] Enough already! Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Enough already! Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] Enough already! Phillip Hallam-Baker