Re: [Cfrg] Enough already!

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

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.