IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Fri, 14 July 2017 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=83687b9b62=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 42D0E13175F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O9LktRuCdME3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A58131457 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id v6EJOO7L034919; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:25:31 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20170714185518.GB2926@localhost>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:25:26 -0400
CC: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <32E7F7C7-6D6B-47D2-8A3C-7176B1FE8327@ll.mit.edu>
References: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com> <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie> <E9F707C8-E1A5-4BC4-9D96-8B604DA41A31@ll.mit.edu> <CAPt1N1nRoa=zoYB3VQuYZuj2Usrz+M4HUkK4C5PP7fL=hsoEaA@mail.gmail.com> <20170714185518.GB2926@localhost>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-07-14_13:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707140309
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/X9I3QKQkkGwBQIZBXVWhb-p5rJc>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:25:35 -0000

> ... the IESG could also decline to allow such a WG item to
> get published.  

That’s what I’d expect and hope for.


> Better skip the Q/A at the WG meeting -- it makes no difference as to
> determining consensus,

+1

> and no one needs the other side screaming bloody
> murder and judging one a moron or evil.  

I thought the judgment has already been made? ;-)

P.S. I assume the “or” above is an “inclusive or”? ;-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email