Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Stephen.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> I'm sorry, but I gotta say that answer seems to me both unresponsive
> to the questions asked and unconvincing.
>
> On 08/03/18 23:08, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> In the meeting in Prague there was interest in this problem space, but
>> neither the consensus to accept or reject this work.
>
> Without rough consensus to adopt, the work is not adopted.
>
> But your statement above isn't accurate - it wasn't "this work"
> (as in this draft) that was discussed in Prague, but rather the
> entire idea of weakening TLS in these ways - quoting from the
> Prague minutes [1]:
>
> "The main question: Is this subject something that the WG should
> consider?"

The hummed answer to that question was very close to 50/50 in the
room, inconclusive.

>
> There is clearly no consensus to adopt *any* work in this space,
> whether that be draft-green or this latest iteration from Russ
> and Ralph.

It was clear that there was no consensus to adopt draft-green and that
is considered dead in the water, we agree there.  Since there was
interest (50% of the room) to consider work in this space, I agree
with the chairs assessment to allow this presentation.  I am confident
they will work on any hums to carefully assess next steps and if any
future proposals belong in this WG or elsewhere.

>
> I see nothing whatsoever to indicate any significant change in
> sets of opinions since Prague.
>
> What makes you think iterating on yet more proposals like this
> will ever conclude? If there's no evidence of that we ought not
> waste the time and energy. Can you point at any change that
> could possibly indicate that this bun-fight is worth doing yet
> again?
>
>>  The authors have
>> revised their proposal to address some of the concerns raised by working
>> group members and are asking to bring the new approach in front of the
>> working group.
>
> What significant change has there been since -00 of Russ and Ralph's
> draft? I see nothing major there. that -00 was debated on the list
> which is the primary place for  discussion. My read of that set of
> threads it that it pretty clearly showed that the same folks have
> the same opinions with no significant movement. Can you point at
> some evidence to the contrary? If not, we shouldn't bother to waste
> more time on this.
>
> If instead you mean Russ and Ralph's draft differs from draft-green,
> then see above - it wasn't only draft-green that was rejected in
> Prague, but the entire idea of adopting work in this space, which
> includes Russ and Ralph's -00 and -01.
>
> That the authors have asked for time counts for nothing, when the
> WG have no consensus to work in this space. If just asking for time
> does matter, then I'll now publicly repeat my request for time
> to refure the assertions that'll be made for breaking TLS. You said
> no to my request, so what's different about one that relates to a
> draft that has been debated on the list and attracted significant
> negative comment?
>
>> I believe in this case this is the right thing to do even
>> if it appears there is some repetition of topic.
>
> It is not "some repetition" - this topic has been debated f2f and
> on this draft on the list and there's zero evidence of significant
> changes in opinion, in fact the opposite. Can you point at any
> such evidence? If not, your position as chairs seems illogical.
>
>> However, if the new
>> approach fails to achieve significantly more support I believe the authors
>> will need to find another path for their work that does not go through the
>> TLS working group.
>
> But the WG has already demonstrated a lack of consensus to even
> consider "work in this space" (your choice of words I believe.)
> That should be enough. What does or doesn't happen outside the
> TLS WG is not at issue here.
>
> To reiterate, in Prague you asked "The main question: Is this subject
> something that the WG should consider?" The result was a clear lack of
> any consensus to work in this space, which means not working in this
> space. Yet here we are again giving agenda time to highly controversial
> proposals in this space.
>
> Please: just take this off the agenda and let the WG do it's real work.
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-tls

Relevant comment from minutes:
Hums: No clarity whatsoever. Seemed pretty even.

Best,
Kathleen

>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Sean, Joe,
>>>
>>> On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>> I’ve posted the draft agendas:
>>>>
>>>> Monday:
>>>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-
>>> 101-tls-sessb
>>>
>>> That includes:
>>> "
>>> TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
>>>  - 10min draft - Russ
>>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/
>>>  - 10min discussion - Chairs
>>>  - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
>>> "
>>>
>>> Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
>>> being given any time. I also have some questions
>>> below.
>>>
>>> This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
>>> very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
>>> that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
>>> doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
>>> that anything has changed in the meantime.
>>>
>>> Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
>>> with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
>>> that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
>>> am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
>>> different from what was discussed on the list so I
>>> see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.
>>>
>>> Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
>>> being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?
>>>
>>> And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?
>>>
>>> As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
>>> topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
>>> of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
>>> then what's the plan for ending this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> S.
>>>
>>> PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
>>> and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
>>> also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
>>> the WG based on that euphemism.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen