Fwd: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

FYI

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Black, David" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
> Date: June 9, 2020 at 4:41:40 GMT+3
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: int-area <[e-mail]>, IETF SAAG <[e-mail]>
> 
> This email announces a limited-scope 3rd TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
> 
>     Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network
>      Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols
>                  draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/>
> 
> This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.  This WGLC has
> been cc:’d to the SAAG and INT-AREA lists courtesy of the breadth of
> interest in this draft, but WGLC discussion will take place on the TSVWG
> list ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) – please don’t remove that list address if/when
> replying with WGLC comments.
> 
> This 3rd WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 29,
> 2 weeks before the draft submission cutoff for IETF 108.
> 
> This 3rd WGLC is limited to the following two topics:
> 
> Whether or not to proceed with a request for RFC publication
> of the draft.   The decision on whether or not to proceed will
> be based on rough consensus of the WG, see RFC 7282.
> During the 2nd WGLC, Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi expressed
> strong views that this draft should not be published –  those
> concerns have not been resolved and are carried forward to
> this WGLC.  This email message was an attempt to summarize
> those concerns:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/i4qyY1HRqKwm0Jme9UtEb6DyhXU/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/i4qyY1HRqKwm0Jme9UtEb6DyhXU/>
> Further explanation from both Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi
> is welcome and encouraged to ensure that their concerns are
> clearly understood.
> 
> Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft that
> was the subject of the second WGLC (e.g., whether or not they
> suffice to resolve concerns raised during that WGLC, other
> than overall objections to publishing this draft as an RFC):
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15>
> 
> Comments should be sent to the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> list, although purely
> editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors.  Please cc: the
> WG chairs at [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  if you would like the chairs to
> track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.
> 
> No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> David and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs – Gorry is recused as a draft author)