Re: [TLS] Update on TLS 1.3 Middlebox Issues

I suggest we not have this debate now. We'll have a lot more data towards
the end of the month and we can have an informed discussion then.

-Ekr

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 7, 2017 10:43, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
>
>
> ➢ I don't want to speak for browser vendors, but history suggests that
> Option 3) may not be a viable one for browsers with a significant market
> share.
>
> They can do what they want, but if they’re “in the rough” on the consensus
> call, I hope they’ll go along.
>
>
> Rich, I think you may be forgetting that IETF standards are voluntary.
> They may be in the rough with regard to Publishing an RFC, but if they
> can't ship that RFC, they won't, and publishing an RFC that can't be
> shipped doesn't do much good.
>
> Better to take the time to figure out how to make this deployable (with a
> blend of 1/2 and 3).   We're still a decade ahead of the 1.2 roll out
> timeline.
>
> --Richard
>
>
> As for yoav’s point about “not during Q4” freeze; that happens to both
> clients and servers :)
>
> I ask that everyone who is involved in these “middlebox failure
> experiments,” collectively or individually, work on a presentation for
> Singapore.  Unless there are some big surprises, I am going to ask for a
> consensus call on just moving it forward.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>