IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 12 April 2018 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 36B0812704A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 cEY5U0FXcM7f for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22b.google.com (mail-ot0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22b]) (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 1FDA0124207 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id a14-v6so5863029otf.6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vm6vbUz90WDOwNSu+4r0bZoftWwAE3VEl9OAwbSqaXI=; b=tzCSriplewNaF6KubAUi+jkMzCvf4SGr5rdbvmHRZZAK5s9FryDSa33tQVL3rdlvGG MVqwKqohm03KGMehHVb3E2G4SFCfcw5AuRhgNirMC9pmvxnWwCpKgQGV94LEqUhiBNgn 9fenWuTgcub/oQ3iwwR4XG4WRAqZf7BcMZ/Jq8Yf0Ogxpla2wmlVGnYakFwbm64hnpgY 0fFoLrOca054+M+uzh2zhKPjiqnfonPbTwse/LhICZq2oTSKLPW84ylGlotIhSXNkrWX WihBI42R7mJzSdykFqs6aMDcYIBLkitGWfjnDUS46U4lzM7zKiIhpN0zLa9zxxZSzUz6 pxjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vm6vbUz90WDOwNSu+4r0bZoftWwAE3VEl9OAwbSqaXI=; b=Hept/ReVNGlCqR8AQiyZP2aZowI+rrNZZH9FtfmDoLKC3nqbpJuNImC3akW9+Pirbw zf2ctpM7xTShlgZKvwFTjDYiqOc/EM6AjFaqBlMfcD4BzRiYYpO4bAg4TCRIR3UUcNH0 +JDLXRlxDcb9Sotzj2ZU2b5IIAwGa5w/9leDqV6v4xX50GgTtXd+T4FZzPinHHKdJ4nO jpRz0CuR6YJj+aHYUTut4udmDxCeu1QTJxNNk1f6q0iLruTO11O6WCV59DgCbb7CmgmZ Zxtv7uJ4PZ2euvbpflmb36Pau6xsjoVtskXo3UrAr6E8SNyjANHKkCP4iX25yMNhsjEA IrMw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDLJPkS4AYx6QpIHiZCKWDHPlz1p9WL5Sa4fNgD/i3TjscOLGt5 12XWE8d+R8Br6iBlPbigF2AhHB7i5tnkPkMmrMjbPG93
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48byRzY25U5sRjHIZ+4GesvmLCrJf0C9/RnOhW+wctqh5CNq9LdaN+ygTXjo9t87ecD7uCPp5gxdek2XP91PpU=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:738e:: with SMTP id j14-v6mr569677otk.248.1523537917201; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.201.90.67 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdXfVQ5ZYL+dTvFeTfOaz2NNPrqxvnWuqJkxu0aaKDF_Sg@mail.gmail.com> <20180410235321.GR25259@localhost> <20180411173348.GP17433@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 08:58:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSuTOaT_NwnpXaa8DPhNJhzqZwepRL+J29BzcBfCTDtHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b5fed0569a65013"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/7iiEKPiSNGj_KS0EvTlJENHDW_M>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:58:40 -0000

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> I don't really agree with that characterization.  To state my
>> understanding,
>> as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in the
>> RFC Editor's queue being processed.
>>
>
> That was a process mistake.
>
> 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS
> 2) other people raised issues in response
> 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern
> 4) document was placed in RFC Editor queue despite this
> 5) TLS consensus call done on the list
> 6) here we are....
>
> I think it is not good to use this process as a way of approving things.
> A process mistake was made.
>

The question Ben was asking, though, is whether the impact of that process
mistake is serious enough to merit pulling back the doc from the RFC editor.

Personally, I think the answer is no, and I'm not hearing clear consensus
in either direction in this thread.  So ISTM the best information the
chairs and ADs have to go on is the hum taken in the room (which all of the
litigants here participated in), which was pretty clearly in favor of
proceeding.

--Richard


>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email