Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Hi Sean, Joe,

WG also has this at its disposal:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00
Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility?
Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other.

| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: ximaera@gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
| tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>