IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Fri, 14 July 2017 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=83687b9b62=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 79C9B12F29A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4MHNpnAFA6BS for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx2.ll.mit.edu (LLMX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D791271DF for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by llmx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id v6EHTbiI019404; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 13:29:39 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
CC: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!
Thread-Index: AQHS/LC5Yd/BsGKLV0aovc3qwkyFuaJTsCCAgAAA7ICAACDlgIAAA1AA
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:22:41 +0000
Message-ID: <89DFCCB3-69E6-4323-A080-67FD9799B7AA@ll.mit.edu>
References: <7603A43F-62F7-486C-B2A7-48DD56231814@sn3rd.com> <b405b2c3-aee5-8d93-c86b-8172461e68b7@cs.tcd.ie> <E9F707C8-E1A5-4BC4-9D96-8B604DA41A31@ll.mit.edu> <CAPt1N1nRoa=zoYB3VQuYZuj2Usrz+M4HUkK4C5PP7fL=hsoEaA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nRoa=zoYB3VQuYZuj2Usrz+M4HUkK4C5PP7fL=hsoEaA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-258F6C6B-D59D-4E5A-BF5E-03D9893DD984"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-07-14_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707140281
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/mjcNSbmBFy_wmSMbxVKpdMWi_U8>
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 17:29:46 -0000

I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping presentation.

I would not call the discussed draft "the important business" - for me it's anything but that. 

Regards,
Uri

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:11, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> I have two working groups already in the monday slot.   I doubt I'm unique in this.   It seems like you should put the important business in the slot that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot.   It's hard to imagine how a discussion of the wiretapping thing could be anything other than a dance at the mic, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <uri@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Current agenda does look backwards. IMHO, do as Stephen suggested.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Uri
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:10, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TLS mailing list
>> > TLS@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email