[TLS]Re: Consensus call for RFC8773bis Formal Analysis Requirement

[Christopher Patton <[e-mail]>]

I vote for Option 1: Let's see if/how this changes existing proofs before
we move to standards track. From a quick look, it doesn't seem like
implementing this extension should cause anyone trouble, but we might as
well be sure.

Chris P.



On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> WRT the draft, yes I think more formal analysis is likely
> warranted.
>
> WRT Rich's complaint: I think the chairs would be wise to try
> to explicitly address the points he makes and that were raised
> at the IETF-120 session. I got the distinct impression that
> a bunch of active WG participants were not happy with the state
> of the triage panel thing, and also the distinct impression
> that the chairs weren't quite grokking that. (It can be hard to
> pickup the overall message from the front of the room sometimes.)
>
> My take on the panel is roughly: yes, I don't get why there seems
> no desire to collaborate with ufmrg (but I'm biased there:-), and
> I also think that the anonymity thing means we shouldn't take
> panel comments as seriously as ones made in public - but there
> is nothing preventing the chairs from encouraging panel members to
> just copy the list with their comments as the norm and handle any
> situation where someone can't do that as an exception. (I've also,
> as a sorta-bogus member of the the CFRG crypto panel, seen some
> issues with people taking CFRG crypto panel output more seriously
> than sometimes warranted - many of those reviews are very good,
> but not all are equal, and those reviews are not as directly
> affecting the IETF standards process, so what's ok there may not
> be ok here.)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>