Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCF2E2D0288
	for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1;
	t=1777100528; bh=uYC2P0vJkEB246OtDBAEJdIqgdIjXRT/gf6JFEdfp0o=;
	h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
	b=twyOmVopAwiX7YkbDpnUkRKYsoBO8UXjFh/x2sHXLQmj0rxjBklVohR92+EhKHqIj
	 HncghducwPYTVGiJ58sE/wEP2izpTloCLU7To387lEzhtq+nR+/MRexeE/vKLj8oeo
	 0A9qCk64npCjEg29dr6urpsIqDtrNshX6JN01Bvs=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
	SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key)
	reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31])
	by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id YcsyeOYNkbmN for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>;
	Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com
 [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1])
	by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12ADE2D021E
	for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.68.166])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 63P70RG6003427
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sat, 25 Apr 2026 00:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail;
	t=1777100490; x=1777186890; i=@elandsys.com;
	bh=uYC2P0vJkEB246OtDBAEJdIqgdIjXRT/gf6JFEdfp0o=;
	h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References;
	b=PV+DbTxNqeqAaXrN+eQZqalbcN5xf1OXzS5lwcOsJMH6UFt6zHr9Jp0xLClZMZ0yZ
	 ukJgCSPySLYTvVLeTp1IylAVZiFtKj+MCgd3sKgytCYKvJqWboBTvrf7XxaEbAf0J8
	 zEBjfIy+2+P6JWM+wr01GW/rMpBwB0f2KTxkH/Gw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20260424221321.11480b90@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 22:54:14 -0700
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>, tls@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <7f74ea6f-2197-472c-88d2-5b503754f064@tu-dresden.de>
References: <143FA1BF-280A-4469-ADE0-7CAE3867DB88@sn3rd.com>
 <9759b289-15aa-4cae-a306-258873b90f07@tu-dresden.de>
 <80CE4119-79F9-40B2-82FF-2D6E2BFE967C@sn3rd.com>
 <b3d2495c-ca82-420c-9bb8-8f5766f1c94a@tu-dresden.de>
 <6.2.5.6.2.20260424093844.1132e398@elandnews.com>
 <38ca4094-51a8-46b8-9b6c-2a67e9508db5@tu-dresden.de>
 <6.2.5.6.2.20260424124250.0c41d0b0@elandnews.com>
 <7f74ea6f-2197-472c-88d2-5b503754f064@tu-dresden.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID-Hash: RQSJTB7BIUEQ7RSQY3HGLYQMNRRNJOZI
X-Message-ID-Hash: RQSJTB7BIUEQ7RSQY3HGLYQMNRRNJOZI
X-MailFrom: sm@elandsys.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency;
 loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0;
 nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size;
 news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTLS=5D_Re=3A_FATT_Process_Updates=3A_Contacting_FATT?=
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working
 group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YxWRHeYXjAYyHL1t8WJ1GhBZm20>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Usama,
At 04:20 PM 24-04-2026, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
>The other feedback I got for FATT contact in this thread is 'there 
>are reasonable arguments to be made.' It's not fully clear to me 
>whether the implication is to say that my arguments are not 
>reasonable. Hence, my questions to you:
>    * mind sharing if you feel my arguments in [1] and here are reasonable?
>    * and if possible, which argument is lacking?
>    * It would be helpful if you could share: which potential risks 
> and gaps do you view in my proposal other than FATT not responding?
I noticed that what I described looks like a catch-22 {1] after 
sending my previous reply.

I did not find anything in the arguments which you sent which were 
not reasonable.  I would factor in the human element as that's 
generally where a mechanism which looks good fails to deliver the 
desired results.

The "no response" could turn into a problem.  It's not possible to do 
anything about that because of the catch-22.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/catch-22_n 

