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

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 <ben@nostrum.com> 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 <
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> mmusic@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>