Re: [TLS] TLS DNSSEC chain consensus text, please speak up...

And to be clear, it's not that nobody is going to implement the extension
(it's already been done in an IETF hackathon and elsewhere), the work on
the extension was funded by Mozilla, and there's been an outstanding
request for this in Bugzilla.  What's not being implemented is the proposed
changes.

But, it's clear that those guys don't intend to compromise and we're going
to be deadlocked pretty much forever unless someone does something.  That's
not going to be Viktor and it's not going to be the chairs, so I guess it's
me.

Melinda

On Thu, May 17, 2018, 16:20 Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
wrote:

> I’m actually fine with that.  You have to consider P_{extension
> implemented and used}.
>
>
>
> Different people will disagree about the value of P.
>
>
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Wouters [mailto:paul@nohats.ca]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:18 PM
> *To:* Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
> *Cc:* James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; <
> tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [TLS] TLS DNSSEC chain consensus text, please speak up...
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 17, 2018, at 19:44, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
> wrote:
>
> Making things more complicated with no obvious benefit just makes things
> more complicated.
>
> I oppose adding two bytes for some nebulous future purpose.
>
>
>
> The consequence of this opinion would be this:
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asmithee-tls-dnssec-downprot-00
>
>
>
> Which is a lot of complexity for one TLS extension to define the behaviour
> of another TLS extension. And it still adds two bytes in the 2nd extension.
>
>
>
> So if you believe more simplicity is better, then you made the wrong
> choice.
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>