[TLS]Re: Consensus call for RFC8773bis Formal Analysis Requirement

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

WRT the draft, yes I think more formal analysis is likely
warranted.

WRT Rich's complaint: I think the chairs would be wise to try
to explicitly address the points he makes and that were raised
at the IETF-120 session. I got the distinct impression that
a bunch of active WG participants were not happy with the state
of the triage panel thing, and also the distinct impression
that the chairs weren't quite grokking that. (It can be hard to
pickup the overall message from the front of the room sometimes.)

My take on the panel is roughly: yes, I don't get why there seems
no desire to collaborate with ufmrg (but I'm biased there:-), and
I also think that the anonymity thing means we shouldn't take
panel comments as seriously as ones made in public - but there
is nothing preventing the chairs from encouraging panel members to
just copy the list with their comments as the norm and handle any
situation where someone can't do that as an exception. (I've also,
as a sorta-bogus member of the the CFRG crypto panel, seen some
issues with people taking CFRG crypto panel output more seriously
than sometimes warranted - many of those reviews are very good,
but not all are equal, and those reviews are not as directly
affecting the IETF standards process, so what's ok there may not
be ok here.)

Cheers,
S.