Re: [MMUSIC] Doodle poll [Re: Moving Forward on 4572-update (was Re: Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move forward)]

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just to clarify: even though I do want the  spec to be an update to 4572, I am happy with the note saying that the spec does not make existing implementations non-compliant with 4572.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Oct 2016, at 18.08, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Essentially there are two issues:

1. Should we mandate the SHA-256
2. Should this be an update to RFC 4572

I do not care about mandating SHA-256. Christer updated the draft to include this at Martin's request. Then he removed it at Cullen's request. I would ask two of them to talk and try to come to an agreement.

I do care strongly about this document being an update to RFC 4572 and will be unhappy if this tag is removed. RFC 4572 is ambiguous in regard to multiple fingerprints. Two implementations can currently claim compliance with RFC 4572 but fail to work with each other. I want this resolved and I think this requires an update.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2016, at 8:43, Roman Shpount wrote:

In general, the two opposing champions are Cullen (asking not to update the
required hash algorithm) and Martin (who asked to make SHA-256 the
requirement in the first place).

If Martin is critical to this conversation, then the conversation should wait for him. But I agree with Christer that this is likely to be a behind-the-mike discussion. I half expect that to end with "interested parties please gather for a side meeting."

The point being: If a group call cannot happen prior to Seoul, then I strongly suggest interested parties arrange a side meeting there _prior_ to the MMUSIC meeting (currently scheduled Wednesday morning).

(I understand the AD is somewhat frustrated over the draft being stuck on this point ;-)  )



Can I suggest two of them to have a call and see if one can convince the
other? The group had its consensus call, but based on my discussion with
Christer, the draft authors do not particularly care either way regarding
mandatory hash function selection issue. If Martin and Cullen can agree on
the way forward regarding this, they can bring the result to the group and
I am sure we will accommodate it. If they cannot reach an agreement, then
we can look at other ways to resolve it.

I highly encourage that in any case.



Please note, that Chirster and I do feel strongly that the new draft should
be considered an update to RFC 4572, since it clarifies the multiple
fingerprint related issues. I do believe any of the 4572 implementations
should be compliant with the new draft in order to avoid interop issues.


I take that to mean that if Martin and Cullen go off and decide the "updates" tag is not needed, you will be unhappy? If so, please try to participate in any such call.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi,

Keep in mind that this would most likely not be a thing where the
presenter (me, I assume) shows a slide that people the comment on. It would
mostly be a “behind the microphone argume… eeeh.. discussion” between a few
people, so I wonder whether the WG session is the best place to discuss
this.

Regards,

Christer

From: Bo Burman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday 28 October 2016 at 12:39
To: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Cc: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
ART ADs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC] Doodle poll [Re: Moving Forward on 4572-update (was
Re: Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move
forward)]

This is definitely possible – MMUSIC Seoul agenda is not set in stone, but
please be aware that the single MMUSIC session is only an hour in total.

/Bo

MMUSIC co-chair



*From:* mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>] *On
Behalf Of *Eric Rescorla
*Sent:* den 28 oktober 2016 10:49
*To:* Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
*Cc:* Ben Campbell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mmusic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; ART ADs <
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Cullen
Jennings <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.
com>
*Subject:* Re: [MMUSIC] Doodle poll [Re: Moving Forward on 4572-update

(was Re: Rough concensus: Re: 4572-update: Consensus call on how to move
forward)]



Dealing with this in Seoul seems like a reasonable suggestion



-Ekr





On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
wrote:

On 26 October 2016 at 15:54, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
wrote:
A Doodle poll is now available at

        http://doodle.com/poll/kxw4n9a2v7v3pe2y

We are looking at either Wednesday or Friday next week (November 2 or
4), so
please get your vote in pretty quickly if you are interested.

These are awful times for me, though I would like to be involved.
It's not that long now until we will all be in the same room, is this
somehow urgent enough that we need to have a call?


_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic



_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic




_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic