Re: [TLS] A new consensus call on ALPN vs NPN (was ALPN concerns)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

You write:

  But, don't you think it would be better for the whole working group to
  make that determination, instead of just the chairs? I think that if
  you simply asked the working group if we (still) have have a
  consensus, and the consensus is "go ahead with ALPN," then the whole
  issue would be resolved within a week or two, and there would be no
  trouble with IETF LC.

This is the purpose served by the WGLC, which ended in September.
You are asking for yet another call for consensus; this would be appropriate
if there were materially new information available to the WG which
became available after WGLC (otherwise, people could just keep
asking for consensus calls).  Whether this is in fact the case is a
question for the chairs and the ADs.

We consulted with the AD prior to taking this action, so perhaps he
will respond to you separately.

-Ekr


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Brian Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> After reviewing your request, the chairs believe that it does not raise any
>> new substantive issues that were not known to the WG at the time of the
>> decision to adopt ALPN and the subsequent WGLC. Therefore, we do not
>> believe it is appropriate to re-open the issue at this time.
>>
>> Because the document has already passed WGLC, we will be asking the
>> AD for advancement. You should of course feel free to reraise your objections
>> during IETF LC.
>
> Thanks for the response Eric.
>
> I can understand that the chairs may not think it is appropriate to
> re-open the issue at this time. It isn't surprising, because you have
> lobbied for ALPN and against NPN, and you've also said that it is
> important for Cisco (the other chair's employer) to have its
> inspection appliances capable of learning which protocol is being used
> on TLS connections.
>
> But, don't you think it would be better for the whole working group to
> make that determination, instead of just the chairs? I think that if
> you simply asked the working group if we (still) have have a
> consensus, and the consensus is "go ahead with ALPN," then the whole
> issue would be resolved within a week or two, and there would be no
> trouble with IETF LC. But, if we don't verify that we actually have a
> consensus now, then during IETF LC there will be doubt about whether
> we still have a consensus.
>
> I remember somebody once saying that, when we have authority, it is
> important to avoid not just impropriety, but also the *appearance* of
> impropriety. We as a working group have the authority and
> responsibility to everybody that uses IETF protocols and products
> based on TLS to make sure we've made good decisions and achieved
> consensus. So, I still think it is important, before advancing the
> document to IETF LC, that we clarify and verify that we actually have
> a consensus.
>
> Thanks again,
> Brian