Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

[nalini elkins <[e-mail]>]

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.



2.  The TLS WG of the IETF has many of the world's experts in defining such
protocols.  The years of collective expertise is remarkable.   We want to
work with the TLS group not try to recreate it.



3.   The reason I support the enterprises and their voice in TLS is because
I am naive enough to actually believe in the IETF.  I believe that
technical truth matters.  That it is not actually the Vendor Engineering
Task Force.  That is a group of the vendors, by the vendors and for the
vendors.   I could see when this whole thing with taking away RSA was
happening that correct though it may be, it was going to cause enormous
disruption for many, many people in the commercial world.  You may not
believe it, but I am actually doing this because I really believe that we
need one set of standards that everyone can use.  I want it to be in the
TLS WG.  I want the TLS WG to be credible and succeed and I want the IETF
to succeed.  I believe that the Internet needs it.



4.  Again, believe it or not, the TLS WG needs the enterprises.  Of course,
this is all my opinion only.   These enterprises are a huge group of users
of the IETF protocols and TLS in particular.   The feedback of users is
irreplaceable.  Who are we building the protocols for if not the users?
Sure, there are multiple sets, but these are a very large group.


And, OK, maybe they don't state every need properly, let's try to help
them.   When I was designing products, I didn't expect the customer to come
up with the design for the screen or the code.  They don't have the skills
to do that.  They provide feedback and come up with requirements.  I do the
code design.


Any organism which does not take feedback is not likely to thrive in the
long term.


Again, I am asking everyone to be open to working together.


Nalini





On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Andrei Popov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>    - "We" is a consortium of organizations.   I would say over 50 so
>    far.  They operate large data centers.   They are in manufacturing,
>    insurance, finance, and others.
>
>
>
>    - 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.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Andrei
>



-- 
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com