Re: [Patient] [EXT] Re: the IETF participant choice

[Brian Witten <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,


Thank you for your note!  I very much empathize with the pains of remote participation, and it's very unfortunate that the dates conflicted for SG 17 this week as we clearly both have colleagues and friends at both events.  I personally applaud the work in both ETSI TC Cyber and ITU SG 17, along with the work in the IETF TLS WG.


In person, here at the IETF, I got a bit of a different feeling than you described from remote participation.  In person, I heard more emphasis on the valid technical concerns which were raised, concerns which focused on the proposed protocol, not the use-cases.  We heard additional requirements not yet factored into a design.  Of course, the "passive-listener / off-line decrypt" challenges which rhrd (tonight's hum) attempted to address are not the same as the "in-line, actively acknowledged proxy," challenges which PATIENT has been discussing.  Still, I was glad to see Steve Fenter's use cases received "better than at least I had expected," even if the proposed draft protocol design was not accepted.


I believe that the authors have the option to either (a) propose directly to the Security Area Directors a new protocol better addressing the requirements emphasized in discussion tonight, so that the AD's can decide whether TLS WG discussion of a third design is the right best next step, or (b) consider pursuing formation of a new WG such as through a BOF process.  I'm not sure which they'll do, but I look forward to learning that from the SAAG and/or TLS WG lists.


Please LMK if I can help more -


Best,

Brian


________________________________
From: Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 2:42:18 PM
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: [e-mail]; Brian Witten
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Patient] the IETF participant choice


Almost every venue does things pretty much this way.

No fora exists to solve all the world's network operational problems.  "Sorry, not our problem" is an acceptable answer.  Those venues that don't have that option, when appropriate, are probably best avoided.

--tony

On 19-Mar-18 5:23 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
There are individuals who show up here to talk about why they need stuff and use their own operational problems as examples. That's how we always do this. It's really a process of successive approximation.