Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 27 March 2014 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A301E1A0721 for <>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N5j3rBjo7JVE for <>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3746B1A03DF for <>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r20so121674wiv.15 for <>; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6mJ+MNuMNBpaXVx1KHnPEN17ejnn/9w96qp2lNlDUQc=; b=Tb//xhBsHYIuC5sKhKL+RGaKJ9hWglDMBbcvl9Lzpp45ZTuI0nNXRubNR+QQvVCOk6 HbrsogVvwvP0vZulT5wNTFzrhLoT+27Xr4sL1aVyW/TOP7wrJ9x1bmnRGdVPBZZHflRu PmKf3D5qlfyd8MPlklz1hSVyQYOxbDjZ4Jkqp1WiBVy7Y47TxhejyZNTpm8z9VRxJnkL ntHbwwlnlVjXpXP+d5WSwv5w5gbA2bCi0VHx2R5fNdxxjW/ag09W22AHi98oDiZ7qMqs 7/HK7XNchxeJQqE5AJ3KPNesYPEecmVSE7nCHp2TiuiMt+4lPzpCk/GRJ2gJso1yphTK cLJw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id co4mr8398821wib.50.1395961611748; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:06:51 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Trevor Perrin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:06:56 -0000

On 27 March 2014 15:45, Trevor Perrin <> wrote:
> But I would personally prefer a more open process based around
> soliciting and comparing different proposals, without pre-judging in
> advance what changes are "gratuitous".

I'll note two things here:

1. nothing leaves the working group until there is consensus for it to
do so, no matter what process has been followed

2. nothing prevents you or anyone from making a any time

If it turns out that major surgery or even a complete rewrite is
necessary, and there is working group consensus for either, then I
have faith that someone will make that proposal.  And that proposal, I
hope, will be judged on its merits.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that what Sean describes is a bad
plan.  In fact, since our chairs have run this rodeo before, I have a
strong suspicion that this is a decision based on experience with
getting results.  I would like results.