Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Thu, 08 March 2018 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
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 1ED9A12711D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:08:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 iX6R6ZcPCywR for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x236.google.com (mail-pf0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CD6E1205D3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x236.google.com with SMTP id u5so534899pfh.6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:08:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wOGnHuZGrVWN9wEGXdmqiYCyDREu87dkfdp+T6zDTRM=; b=uWISyHNpgyCO86qupP4Ozt/uUffYV0MRDGw+/QnIms7Mi5GlEO/Da20ZAsxBGk2923 vAYMpY6y5qNsuNANRevOHZ4jytCIiUHgrr81sSyeUMYMoKsk0fjrE41lfPjCL4Dtc2hY l5HBNFFhtd+ucQuafNIvaAhu/ylCAlrc6NKZ0XVRjSvwarDoGkX5ZlSVoW184AD4lGbB wYm7I0RsY/XbIoKrwpGS9ZzCD2O/15C5rHIflWkJJDSaEVvMv27oPd3OtfOgM0yzgYSN pem5jyuTayW6EJVDdGDswil3irMyC7r5oZ3GtdYr91pyNPzyMXqfKZHz3RXWRdjlrH6u OhXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wOGnHuZGrVWN9wEGXdmqiYCyDREu87dkfdp+T6zDTRM=; b=s0azOdK4VhUvw4sUA2qQA+VjIdE3DoOGO4JKKCyxFcEobYpfqEYhZcoAUSxOOnz60K EIbDMUh+0JH33Za5jU1vMFzi7/Bc2Ij8Mx2grHXEpqZAb4eV0YsTJ4tRSSw+5VRu/FQ1 ICdo/WueU7BJ+r4y5r3fe8LReraY9pMkKJqGLGpkgJXsjNQRrY2p6hAxvNyOkaHmgDV1 zIrz/h4viQD+TljwmjJMscGLf4asw5fx5Hbu3g2ds2bT0yROEIh3ggDdOFkAaWRn7XLq m+n2dQtEhZ2uyB2LtCo2iIBGC0/3iz+hzOYXaf6VDLvLG7/orLVcenSQOFrZVQCqakf7 EwLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HZG8WTXHQMnZP0u83elre+nvT6W6CvP3Tyo2LRNzPZ9eMje3ul GV4Ugnlh7ehXVUD+Gv3wMFhba5qwopGJ5eNKTJcEw6/9
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsKSFxAJPcozDDCZeox3DwqFyayX7NLA0DebQSdBluCCBFGqill3cCHT+WnvArVRlv6puegwWmoPVMgfArrvZ4=
X-Received: by 10.99.115.21 with SMTP id o21mr8362394pgc.226.1520550506798; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:08:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.185.5 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:08:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com> <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:08:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBYc7O+qmjM-ptkRkE6mRsOYgc5O7Wu9pm3drFp3TVa6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c7ac8d2377d0566eec0ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/yvLA_1PyW_2CIWe01c0lThrzGRc>
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:08:29 -0000

Hi Stephen,

In the meeting in Prague there was interest in this problem space, but
neither the consensus to accept or reject this work.  The authors have
revised their proposal to address some of the concerns raised by working
group members and are asking to bring the new approach in front of the
working group.  I believe in this case this is the right thing to do even
if it appears there is some repetition of topic.   However, if the new
approach fails to achieve significantly more support I believe the authors
will need to find another path for their work that does not go through the
TLS working group.

Cheers,

Joe

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
wrote:

>
> Hi Sean, Joe,
>
> On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
> > I’ve posted the draft agendas:
> >
> > Monday:
> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-
> 101-tls-sessb
>
> That includes:
> "
> TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
>  - 10min draft - Russ
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/
>  - 10min discussion - Chairs
>  - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
> "
>
> Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
> being given any time. I also have some questions
> below.
>
> This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
> very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
> that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
> doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
> that anything has changed in the meantime.
>
> Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
> with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
> that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
> am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
> different from what was discussed on the list so I
> see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.
>
> Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
> being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?
>
> And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?
>
> As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
> topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
> of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
> then what's the plan for ending this?
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
> and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
> also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
> the WG based on that euphemism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>