IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Sat, 10 March 2018 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 93A6212D941 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:56:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 fdT2ahT9_l5X for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADE5512D7E5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E11BE2D; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:56:03 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xZj1oZLQ8bdI; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:56:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5CEDBDF9; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:56:01 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1520675762; bh=P1UDKGDlvMWJcQbuF5EkrotP4GuJ7ZFMXQnarWYhejQ=; h=To:Cc:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=BApD+6JXEzAwNfYsjDBKx/kodNvgK1zw7qm3FxoDq3iERbEaP5p4tOu/Y4yROrdNW 3Fz4c6cou0ZYeQjAPwwQiLSVE9v1dZ7HQKX9bXMvEXpPOa30vFaBs2YzGQulPHMBzi Gf8RG6MKXzhBlgzzEnhprwCevAbQDolErVueOY80=
X-Priority: 3
To: melinda.shore@nomountain.net
Cc: tls@ietf.org
From: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
In-Reply-To: <1a024320-c674-6f75-ccc4-d27b75e3d017@nomountain.net>
References: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com> <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOgPGoBYc7O+qmjM-ptkRkE6mRsOYgc5O7Wu9pm3drFp3TVa6Q@mail.gmail.com> <d7dfdc1a-2c96-fd88-df1b-3167fe0f804b@cs.tcd.ie> <CAHbuEH7E8MhFcMt2GSngSrGxN=6bU6LD49foPC-mdoUZboH_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <1a024320-c674-6f75-ccc4-d27b75e3d017@nomountain.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:56:00 +0000
Message-ID: <2ed0gc.p5dcxd.31eoyz-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/uv6i6kyTK37O7-CmlasKG5QMSH8>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted
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: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:56:07 -0000

Hiya,

On Saturday, 10 March 2018, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 3/9/18 12:57 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> > The hummed answer to that question was very close to 50/50 in the
> > room, inconclusive.
> 
> From the perspective of consensus decision-making that's
> actually very clear - there's no consensus.  What that
> means in practice depends on the question that was asked,
> but at any rate I think what matters here is a lack of
> consensus.

Agreed. My earlier mail pointed at the minutes as to the question.  

> 
> Also, there's been basically no discussion of the draft
> on the mailing list, and I'm not sure why.
>

There was lots of discussion about -00, late last year.  -01 isn't significantly different afaics. From my pov that discussion was entirely predictable indicating no significant changes in position. 

Cheers 
S
 
> Melinda
> 
> -- 
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> 
> PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
>                  34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email