Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

[Ryan Sleevi <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:52 PM, nalini elkins <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> All,
>
> In London now & back on email:
>
>
>    - >> Nalini, why don't you (the consortium) define the standard, then?
>
>
>
> > Indeed, if a “TLS13-visibility” standard has to be defined, it would
> make sense for the consortium (rather than the TLS WG) to define it.
>
>
>
> I completely disagree.   Here is why I would not prefer that route:
>
>
>
> 1.  Multiple standards are likely to diverge.
>
>
> Take the case of India, we have over 700 dialects.  Many of them started
> with the same root language.  It has gotten so villages 10 miles apart
> cannot talk to each other.  We use English (a clearly non-native language!)
> to communicate.
>
>
> I could see the same happening with TLS and Consortium-TLS.   Not a happy
> thought for interoperability.
>

Why is there any need for interoperability between TLS and Consortium-TLS?
TLS is designed to be secure and reliable, and it's clear that
Consortium-TLS finds such goals problematic. Yet I fail to see why that's a
problem, since the claimed goal is that Consortium-TLS would only be used
within a single enterprise/datacenter, and thus would never need to
interoperate with a world that valued security and privacy.