IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 28 January 2020 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD223120854 for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:47:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1esoAlDVs2zz for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 110C1120822 for <lake@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A183897A; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:46:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA471087; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:47:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: =?utf-8?B?R8O2cmFuIFNlbGFuZGVy?= <goran.selander=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "lake@ietf.org" <lake@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <92B918F6-52B5-48EE-A99B-808F7604889D@ericsson.com>
References: <28066505-a174-88e0-c39e-ce04075d4f9e@cs.tcd.ie> <EB9F78C5-B5AB-4A3B-B3FF-C66FF547629B@ericsson.com> <e4707fcf-1561-990b-6bad-607defab6962@cs.tcd.ie> <92B918F6-52B5-48EE-A99B-808F7604889D@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 12:47:00 -0500
Message-ID: <23113.1580233620@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/A6VaxHLN5GBL1ApSoFJ6jZ353jQ>
Subject: Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:47:07 -0000

Göran Selander wrote:
    > If we can reach this milestone in a good spirit of co-operation, that
    > would be grand. But we need to reach it even if that isn't possible. A
    > much worse outcome would be that we delay this milestone. For those of
    > us who are working on solutions in this space, this milestone creates a
    > large uncertainty as to what the solution will look like and that has a
    > huge impact on the work. So, we definitely don't want to delay this
    > milestone.

I agree.

I hope that we don't wind up with too many meeting conflicts.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email