IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MLS] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 02 February 2023 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BB0C1575C4; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 07:52:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lx_8N_trQG_b; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 07:52:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F41C151719; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 07:52:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4P73Fg0skwz39n; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:52:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1675353143; bh=q4CjDAytesclBuytcT0U7nYVnNTrkcfbCwncPK9b9aA=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=OhHp9q5RyXM671goR4k7p30Gs6vflPj7jN0dawd8hirytAB/iwobJbm0xWGVYWnTi WP/UK8V89BPNJF29lqZ2fdZDAqF3VyHeRrxYAkebTMnQQOmEkgJoWuMnRTURkP9SCN 6dltlxxYbY2tsUQBniOi+6KAalOVWLMRsXL3SPUQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSm6QoJ18-aX; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:52:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:52:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C829A689343; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 10:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C50689342; Thu, 2 Feb 2023 10:52:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 10:52:20 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
cc: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, mls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRmfxtxwp3gWhXb+mt+mG7W=PP8OVps7YqZxKT-x0cNLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8f49f51e-3e35-1abf-3a96-de3e5b8c03bb@nohats.ca>
References: <167515571410.49520.3365459236396190476@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL02cgRmfxtxwp3gWhXb+mt+mG7W=PP8OVps7YqZxKT-x0cNLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/Wgq3Rz3zbh8rPkVHekbJpXQKEAU>
Subject: Re: [MLS] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-mls-protocol-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Layer Security <mls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mls>, <mailto:mls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 15:52:30 -0000

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, Richard Barnes wrote:

>       ### Too many authors
>
>       The document has six authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has
>       the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate?
> 
> Paul should feel free to correct me, but I believe so.

Indeed. The reason is that these are implementers of different
implementations, and it is appropriate to not arbitrarilly cut
one of them out.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email