Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 01 February 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 2421512003F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:48:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 UAGXuEeXsMp7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from caracal.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (caracal.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101FB120024 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:48:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2248B6A09C5; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 01:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-9-4.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.9.4]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 84C3E6A06D1; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Sat, 01 Feb 2020 01:48:52 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Decisive-Spot: 45b9c98c5727595c_1580521731966_1569828305
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1580521731966:2042135046
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1580521731965
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5454A804AF; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:48:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=OhzUqyvWiJccM+ se2AgZpuLg6PY=; b=wYYkr4RZM/mw9rakcmpXaHUdnLxeyf1ge/ASThfdtPK+5f sgOxWX14681tf3FE5o8xq0i0D6VUIzAezZ7muokF7MKO4CuPkl6+7BniVapKjroL Ig5T3XQTBKMndqiwDSAAxwxO+Y9VnKXNIvFD4Q2FGGXspz6VBL6PTrCF8I55A=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a43.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61617804F5; Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 19:48:45 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a43
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200201014844.GE18021@localhost>
References: <20200123193250.GD12073@localhost> <20200123210151.GG73491@straasha.imrryr.org> <5F5F670C-A0BD-4F38-BEFF-192C171EDAC1@apple.com> <20200131235533.GA18021@localhost> <CAChr6Sz6PEgQUQg8dB9Ym0z5_iRjmZE5g1hUCCgEOsA-7A=P-w@mail.gmail.com> <20200201011115.GB18021@localhost> <CAChr6SywucrTUsAeN6Aw26ufmhcB8txAmFVNGnUaeR3gG653VQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E7DC6E9-A04E-4016-A12A-CFC723E18219@dukhovni.org> <CAChr6SyFJD=tqfwVrMmCGAupz2J9EHX+h6WTsTj76_VQ7FKLMA@mail.gmail.com> <20200201014755.GD18021@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200201014755.GD18021@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrgedugdefjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgepudenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/WMIu9OLSbCkRm0JtZCJrTyqrq8w>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 01:48:54 -0000

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 07:47:57PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:43:36PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:24 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call,
> > > it can be indefinitely postponed.
> > >
> > > I'm not proposing a change of scope.
> > 
> > 
> > ....
> > 
> > > The -04 document leaves out a relevant scenario...
> > >
> > 
> > That sounds like a change of scope, but reasonable people can disagree.
> 
> The scope was never sufficiently well defined to begin with.  I went
> through the adoption thread and the WG charter.

Oh, and I'm not conceding that the proposed change would be a scope
change even if the scope had been sufficiently well defined.