[TLS] Re: FATT Process Updates: Contacting FATT

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for explaining your perspective explicitly. That was indeed 
very helpful. In short, I completely agree with you but I also want to 
ensure some meaningful progress. So I am moving step by step. We could 
make it completely open at some point in the future. I will add your 
proposal as an alternative for consideration by FATT and WG in the next 
version of the draft. You are welcome to propose a PR here [0]. Thank 
you. Some thoughts inline:

On 27.04.26 03:34, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Well, I don't think the FATT needs to allow interjections by TLS WG 
> members. From:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.html#section-4.1.2
>
> I disagree with one of the design goals: "Keep intra-FATT 
> communication private as it is."

I absolutely share your opinion. In fact, I would love to have that 
public too. As a related historical note, I indeed opposed the idea of 
private FATT communication a couple of years ago when the process was 
being made.

So the only purpose of having this design goal here is to move step by 
step and get something done, rather than proposing an abrupt process 
change which might not be acceptable.

> It is not something I would raise an objection over, and it is 
> definitely allowed by RFC 2418. But if the intra-FATT communication 
> were public, but read-only, I think that would solve a lot of the 
> communication issues.

Again, I fully agree with you and would very much love to see your 
proposal implemented but as I understood back then, the primary concern 
was to preserve anonymity of FATT, even though the set is itself very small.

My idea of /hybrid/ design team is just a middle ground that hopefully 
works for everyone.

Best regards,

-Usama


[0] https://github.com/muhammad-usama-sardar/tls-fatt-extension