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

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).

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.

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.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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 <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
> Date: Friday 28 October 2016 at 12:39
> To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> >
> Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>,
> ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>,
> Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, 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)]
>
> 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:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Eric Rescorla
> *Sent:* den 28 oktober 2016 10:49
> *To:* Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>; ART ADs <
> art-ads@ietf.org>; Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>; Cullen
> Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>; 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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 26 October 2016 at 15:54, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
> 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
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>