Re: [TLS] kicking off charter revision discussion

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:53:47PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 2018, at 17:41, Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:19:33PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
> >> Proposed Charter Text
> > 
> > +1, but see comments below.
> > 
> > First off, suppose we wanted to write a successor to RFC2712 for TLS
> > 1.3, should we pursue that in the TLS WG, or KITTEN WG?  I'm amenable to
> > either, and even both.
> 
> I think both would be bad, but whether it goes in one or the other
> would come down to whether there are enough people interested in doing
> the work.

OK.  I suspect we can get it done in KITTEN WG, where we have the
Kerberos expertise, as it's really just a use of PSK in TLS, so we'd not
need to extend TLS in any way.  I think most here would agree.

> > Should the DANE DNSSEC chain extension be on the charter?  We do need to
> > finish it.
> 
> In the current charter, we already have generic text about extensions
> and no specific text about the DANE DNSSEC draft though we adopted the
> draft and there is a milestone for it.  I prefer not to list every
> draft we are working on in the charter specifically because then we
> have to change the darn charter every time we want to adopt a draft.

Just making sure!

> We are going to spend a lot of time discussing the DANE DNSSEC draft.
> When it gets done and what is in it is certainly up for discussion.

Indeed.

Thanks,

Nico
--