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

Nico Williams <> Fri, 14 July 2017 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11A2131760 for <>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wSb1BGdaOo1o for <>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA4CC131548 for <>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF2EC0028AC; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17868C0028A9; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:55:19 -0500
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <>, "<>" <>
Message-ID: <20170714185518.GB2926@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 18:55:25 -0000

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:10:47PM +0200, Ted Lemon 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.


At some point decisions have to be made though, and someone will end up
on the rough side of consensus in the WG.  There could be (will be!)
appeals.  Lastly, the IESG could also decline to allow such a WG item to
get published.  This would all be much easier if the authors would just
go the ISE Informational route.  Then only the IESG needs to decide
anything -- either way the IESG will be the last stop for this train.

Better skip the Q/A at the WG meeting -- it makes no difference as to
determining consensus, and no one needs the other side screaming bloody
murder and judging one a moron or evil.  It won't be worthy of popcorn.
Just boring, oh so boring.