Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

>> Stephen, the opposite PoV is equally valid. There was no consensus in
>> Prague NOT to work on the topic. The mood of the room was evenly
>> divided.
> 
> To clarify, this isn't voting.  If there's no agreement in
> either direction there's no agreement (and I hope the default
> in the IETF is not that in the absence of agreement, work
> goes forward).  The problem is how to come to agreement, and
> what that typically involves is refining the proposal to
> address objections.

The Prague discussion was about draft-green-...  Nick Sullivan summarized four concerns with that approach.  See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg>

draft-rhrd-... addresses all four of these concerns.  We had some discussion on the mail list, which lead to -01 being posted.

I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach.  I would like to find out.

Russ