Re: [Secdispatch] Materials for Virtual Interim Meeting on March-05-2019

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman, Richard,

In reviewing the agenda for this, I realized that this might not be the ideal structure for this particular topic.

This structure is a fairly typical BoF structure for a topic that has a clear path forward, with a reasonably well-understood problem, what appears to be general agreement about how to approach the solution, and one clear candidate for a solution.  We go through that sort of process because it gives us the best chance of ending the meeting with a decision to form a working group around the proposed solution.  It effectively skips a bunch of the wrangling, which I'm sure we would all appreciate.

Going back to the usual set of questions:

1. What is the problem we are faced with?
2. Is the problem understood and narrowly scoped?
3. Do we believe it is possible to engineer a solution?
4. (stretch objective) Is this particular proposal a good basis for working on?

I don't see a whole lot of agreement about even the first question here.  The overwhelming impression you get from mail on the subject is that the primary concern here is the size of messages.  Recent mail from Hannes suggests that there might be a computation cost dimension as well.

The structure of the agenda is such that I don't feel like we'll get very far.  A lot of the time is spent in presentation (something I'm sure will keep me from falling asleep at 3am) of topics that don't directly bear on this particular problem.  In particular, the discussion of formal analysis of EDHOC is not going to help us reach any sort of consensus on the earlier questions as it relates directly to the third question.

Now, I'm sure that at least some of Goran's time will be spent addressing these important topics, I would like to see more time devoted to discussion of the hard questions and less on the "how do we get a working group chartered" end.  It seems like the agenda is specifically structured to presume an outcome on those foundational topics, and it is clear that no such presumption is safe.

Recent discussion leads me to conclude also that the final question might be contentious also, but that's probably a moot point.  I don't think that a mere 1.5 hour call will allow us to get into discussing solutions.

--Martin


On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, at 02:58, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> As a reminder, SECDISPATCH will be meeting for a virtual interim 
> meeting on Tuesday, March 5, 2019.
> 
> ==[ Agenda ]==
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2019-secdispatch-01/materials/agenda-interim-2019-secdispatch-01-secdispatch-01.txt
> 
> ==[ Materials ]==
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2019-secdispatch-01/session/secdispatch
> 
> ==[ Dial-in Information ]==
> Meeting Link: 
> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m9c46ced5a864cc7a44ca4960e4fd6f0a
> 
> Meeting Number: 640 410 560
> Meeting Password: NMESeM7y 
> 
> Audio connection:
> ** 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
> ** Access code: 640 410 560
> 
> Regards,
> Roman and Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>