Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Fri, 14 July 2017 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D2C131559 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VVkg4R7XbV5d for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11EDB131465 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id d78so83643096qkb.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uy5oJcnx97+8DzF8BPtC8+lrhf+ms8FdlYz6sabVWvM=; b=W3jsyGw5EeB2EFtwhxJaiycmbRqR7YKslPn2uz0FMVB2rVxKlYk0hk1EFnntU7EL/2 Jb4I3W2W0PtgBlQsersVzSuwcCG9jbiblC7pr7ZD9mDPO0Ctd7WSs45uW5mTRUE4IRgC H3Mu8Q9tiEzJvp7aCFtDiEt8OZmiHymj5bGKU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=uy5oJcnx97+8DzF8BPtC8+lrhf+ms8FdlYz6sabVWvM=; b=Det5CH754X94uf66Y10cyCqF4Gy18nGTdondPAFMO28xV8+P0bHa/cVyyPSFFrg5/z H5M3mSeNsRQrAt6lZ6D6ixifTwOBPyibuZAtdfdkOF/F4J4x8v8EwmqKOPW/0YrW0ExL gtodQYn3V2CpOSEa2ZXD3GcnqTYoW5yI6r+N12yQOiugTnJWfScd/fwQLJxXJSBDerse xR9/xd+b5LwA9zCo3fOylaed8l+G/5xt+S+jwMaS9EgvMaksLZd4QvXRlGZSpDdiUdwq zWjr5oBotVwfljrBYtNBYRPit2KEFLhZ2KtgcYFvE6fkQKY1IHjqzosy/es2OtRQQ0/Q Mn8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113Wh0nCLkXFuflDBSgpPuGdlt1s/eHqHm4Fmok1nHzFB9Q4XXoR tKpxHn+ltf5V2k17
X-Received: by 10.55.60.13 with SMTP id j13mr14146741qka.71.1500061899120; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.216.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w72sm7270081qka.63.2017.07.14.12.51.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <89DFCCB3-69E6-4323-A080-67FD9799B7AA@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:51:35 -0400
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3CE0375B-CD87-4271-B7B5-FCD74702FAF5@sn3rd.com>
References: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com> <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie> <E9F707C8-E1A5-4BC4-9D96-8B604DA41A31@ll.mit.edu> <CAPt1N1nRoa=zoYB3VQuYZuj2Usrz+M4HUkK4C5PP7fL=hsoEaA@mail.gmail.com> <89DFCCB3-69E6-4323-A080-67FD9799B7AA@ll.mit.edu>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/79i7n5fZo1MK7qWAXcMITF6govU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:51:42 -0000

And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts.

spt

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:22, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <uri@ll.mit.edu>; wrote:
> 
> I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping presentation.
> 
> I would not call the discussed draft "the important business" - for me it's anything but that. 
> 
> Regards,
> Uri
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:11, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; wrote:
> 
>> I have two working groups already in the monday slot.   I doubt I'm unique in this.   It seems like you should put the important business in the slot that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot.   It's hard to imagine how a discussion of the wiretapping thing could be anything other than a dance at the mic, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <uri@ll.mit.edu>; wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Current agenda does look backwards. IMHO, do as Stephen suggested.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Uri
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:10, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hiya,
>> >
>> >> On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>> >> Please let us know your thoughts.
>> >
>> > 80 minutes for wiretapping is too much. Zero would
>> > be better. But if not...
>> >
>> > I'd suggest: 10 minutes for draft-green, 10 minutes
>> > to describe issues with that (i.e. the slot for which
>> > I continue to ask) and then 10 minutes discussion. If
>> > we assume the folks in the room have read the list and
>> > the draft that should be plenty.
>> >
>> > If we assume they haven't read the list, then it's more
>> > important that the counter-arguments be given sufficient
>> > time.
>> >
>> > So your draft agenda seems to get that backwards to me,
>> > in that it allocates 40 minutes for a sales-pitch and
>> > then 40 minutes where we bitch about that at the mic
>> > interspersed with proponents repeating bits of the sales
>> > pitch. That might be more amusing for us all, but seems
>> > like a worse use of time to me.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > S.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TLS mailing list
>> > TLS@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls