Re: [Lurk] [E] Re: IETF-96 LURK raw minutes

"Mishra, Sanjay" <> Mon, 25 July 2016 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9122B12D8E0 for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AsngZ4ID2uVm for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E597B12D8DD for <>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=corp; t=1469457172; x=1500993172; h=from:to:date:subject:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5vnGNziibDMakYbZReesHC5Wxa0SHWKq8bmIwZMh6lw=; b=H01586g9bLsZejMTTfdKHbdz0Mq6TpsjVRqpv2Kb5vovG3YFbK3g3kzR teWS1nmXfe4llMNST6umh9xSQFvWPaj0DbVVlgOLRJPMzH/IkuTe3N6PU XUroKINuL08T64rYGFrvJUvhltky5fuJN//1dLnnkXMocBTvmLsUpUj4x A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2016 14:32:50 +0000
From: "Mishra, Sanjay" <>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,419,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="173652010"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2016 14:31:51 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:31:21 -0400
To: Yaron Sheffer <>, LURK BoF <>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:31:20 -0400
Thread-Topic: [E] Re: [Lurk] IETF-96 LURK raw minutes
Thread-Index: AdHkH1+KEIh0s2VDTZq8znSZyumNsgCXvIGg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lurk] [E] Re: IETF-96 LURK raw minutes
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Limited Use of Remote Keys <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:32:54 -0000

The conversation at the LURK BOF, it appears to me, focused almost entirely on the draft "draft-mglt-lurk-tls",  and potentially limited/reduced any other conversation such as whether the use cases are something the community empathizes with and whether they can be and should be addressed? Also, due diligence at the BOF - perhaps discussion - on the 3rd draft "draft-erb-lurk-rsalg-01" could have been useful to at least debate whether it can stand up to the security (or not) as compared to the other two protocols?


-----Original Message-----
From: Lurk [] On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:46 AM
Subject: [E] Re: [Lurk] IETF-96 LURK raw minutes

I slightly edited the minutes for language and uploaded them:

Thanks again to the minute takers!


Lurk mailing list