IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Fri, 14 July 2017 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=83687b9b62=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 4DA41128B8D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EcNBKhT3hxdq for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0CA131562 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id v6EFD4dm040260; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:13:05 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!
Thread-Index: AQHS/LC5Yd/BsGKLV0aovc3qwkyFuaJTsCCAgAAA7IA=
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:13:04 +0000
Message-ID: <E9F707C8-E1A5-4BC4-9D96-8B604DA41A31@ll.mit.edu>
References: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com> <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-389DECCE-3D69-4BE7-BB37-E40F8BC4966F"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-07-13_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707140239
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Jsx7FO43E0c1mSi6S2mXBBZb9Lg>
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 15:13:11 -0000

+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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email