Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 08 March 2018 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 AD26512711B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:21:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 0uKQWY8eWwfY for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:21:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5635512702E for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E75BE49; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:21:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OTgvbXQprZna; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:21:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA828BE24; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:21:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520529701; bh=y0jw9xwuPoKDS3YsS+z3q+TshNbMY0y8GRBw63ehlPY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ae7G4Uubk7iKWMxxzbveBBZeGffC2tMsFTOVXSojpsgdob3Hm6GsO49rdTvqgE+tI mG17borRAcd7XVUif4J19XvZI4Fc3zP3BWOUW9a5CPvUx5Tez6Wv+qUnWS0BKjn+yj HI4CM0DYWvgB/oTUJp1HkyY1tdnAKop0dt2nPGB4=
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:21:40 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wj4PG3E5wwWTLJseMsCrefVVmEBz1r5u3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/dU4pv7wRd2M7VGA4UoSIGpOv-Bs>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:21:46 -0000

Hi Sean, Joe,

On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
> I’ve posted the draft agendas:
> 
> Monday:
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tls-sessb

That includes:
"
TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
 - 10min draft - Russ
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/
 - 10min discussion - Chairs
 - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
"

Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
being given any time. I also have some questions
below.

This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
that anything has changed in the meantime.

Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
different from what was discussed on the list so I
see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.

Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?

And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?

As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
then what's the plan for ending this?

Thanks,
S.

PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
the WG based on that euphemism.