Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Fri, 12 June 2020 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130B53A0E39 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Q_eY03H6H7jz for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B246E3A0E37 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 05C2RB02062357; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 05C2RB6K062356; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202006120227.05C2RB6K062356@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPw-eXXn08ZyXbqPgSOjcjd+VNEwAkeYqgwg+FpvsT5Dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
CC: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/A91hgm4dXzWevsj9X34HB_qgIk4>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 02:27:20 -0000

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:58 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have opinions about this draft that I've been pretty vocal about to the
> > working group during the past couple of years and in the first two WGLCs,
> > but just to follow up on this point:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 2:02 PM Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 10 June 2020 15:45:50 UTC Mike Bishop wrote:
> >>
> >
> > snipped
> >
> >
> >> > On the whole, I think this document could be suitable for publication
> >> as an
> >> > Informational RFC; it provides real-world context for a trade-off that
> >> > every protocol designer needs to consider carefully.  However, I don?t
> >> > believe its current state reflects, in Ekr?s words, ?the IETF
> >> community's
> >> > view of the relative priority of these concerns.?
> >>
> >> the ietf community is incredibly narrow compared to the world it serves.
> >> very
> >> few of the people and companies whose future will be chosen for them by
> >> ietf
> >> work can afford the time or travel it takes to be represented. this may
> >> be an
> >> inconvenient truth, but it is my reason for considering whether this
> >> document
> >> reflects the broader view of the world's digital economy. i think it does.
> >>
> >
> > Keeping in mind that the target is publication as an Informational RFC, I
> > believe the governing BCP definition is still
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-4.2.2, which says
> >
> > 4.2.2  Informational
> >
> >    An "Informational" specification is published for the general
> >    information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
> >    Internet community consensus or recommendation.  The Informational
> >    designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
> >    very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
> >    sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
> >    that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
> >    (see section 4.2.3).
> >
> 
> > Does anyone think that's been updated?
> >
> 
> Indeed it has:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational-04
> 
> -Ekr

I have read this draft, and like what it says.  One small nit,
OBE is used all capitals, so I must assume it is an abbreviation,
perhaps Over come By Events?  But I seriously doubt it is the
most common found definition of:

	an award given in the UK for a special achievement;
	a person who has received this award (the abbreviation
	for `Officer of the Order of the British Empire') 

Regards,
Rod Grimes

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org