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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

If this is indeed about adding [goo], what prevents Viktor or Paul
from proposing a new addition to the protocol in the form of a new I-D
that enacts the changes they wish to see?

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Melinda Shore
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 4/12/18 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of this thread.
>> In particular, I am hoping that some authors/proponents of leaving the
>> document in the RFC Editor queue would speak to the question of the
>> target scope, given the arguments that have been presented regarding
>> the risk/reward tradeoff of the current narrow scope.
>
> I'm also waiting to see if something new comes up in the
> discussion, but it seems at this point we're just rehashing
> previous discussion and nothing much is changing.  In
> particular, no new information is being contributed.
>
> The one thing that could change my mind about this would be
> if there was an intent to actually attack the problem described
> in the changed scope (well, also if the proposed change could -
> in fact - lead to the deprecation of the web PKI, but the chance
> of that seems vanishingly small).  Absent that I really don't
> like adding goo to protocols on the off chance that at some
> unforeseeable point in the future there's a possibility that
> someone might actually want to use that feature.  I think we've
> got other ways of handling that eventuality and very little
> assurance that it will ever happen, anyway.
>
> Melinda
>
>
> --
> Software longa, hardware brevis
>
> PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
>                  34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls