IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 14 July 2017 15:09 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 5FC24131687 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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=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 lCmtH71UMS7W for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
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 98CB6131562 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C56EBE53; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:09:47 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
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 K0bf3YJbx3Vs; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:09:46 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D3D0BE2C; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:09:46 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1500044986; bh=0f6ch/k0oG/3AOiLhim44kdCq/TLBms2Xidjezi5+Cc=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ied3kOdBAHl4f+2wiJQFFD5/UiwbFlUcXFPW4vKg924d9PeIhf98G2Zmbq4UdkXH7 DmWL1NOfD4rGQtYonS0zwZITLecGgYKf0nwS3yY2D7z8jfCi2hDifoVDYRefsrw9Fi bVePBx5mp0za11dzqULfkkKogZsaUPs0CItx9ghU=
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:09:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2HnuogOBEXEJbsU3PMcsIUn3H2K5FNE8S"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fkRKBdbqpQqFT_D45zDVMyuBvww>
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 15:09:53 -0000

Hiya,

On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>  Please let us know your thoughts.

80 minutes for wiretapping is too much. Zero would
be better. But if not...

I'd suggest: 10 minutes for draft-green, 10 minutes
to describe issues with that (i.e. the slot for which
I continue to ask) and then 10 minutes discussion. If
we assume the folks in the room have read the list and
the draft that should be plenty.

If we assume they haven't read the list, then it's more
important that the counter-arguments be given sufficient
time.

So your draft agenda seems to get that backwards to me,
in that it allocates 40 minutes for a sales-pitch and
then 40 minutes where we bitch about that at the mic
interspersed with proponents repeating bits of the sales
pitch. That might be more amusing for us all, but seems
like a worse use of time to me.

Cheers,
S.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email