Re: [tsvwg] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Tue, 05 November 2019 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10BD12003F; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:06:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u73f2vGFNedt; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 108F312002F; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:06:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476bgr00GWz1x0MG; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:06:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1572926776; bh=Lje+uXNlnXInbUhNE/+tD+X7+7fIBoMR2+dA7T66uSs=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZlGlZ52OVBWzkCIcwIXUT0dpICycA6pyVwaS049+drHqSnjzQOLZJKR5/XTZ0lh/A 4cVUVFUvlTCSUIphb0dk2GppRuYYhKnVrzg3L7Gzw8m9P44CUGnqalaVSKbLHUDCy5 shen4pDYRJFAeODXp9TEO+xPUsRxHx9ubDihmVFI=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 476bgp1XHfz1x0M3; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:06:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Joe Touch <>
Cc: Peter Gutmann <>, "" <>, "IETF IPPM WG (" <>, tsvwg-chairs <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <4460_1571933453_5DB1CD0D_4460_57_4_5AE9CCAA1B4A2248AB61B4C7F0AD5FB931F030A0@OPEXCAUBM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 23:06:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [OPSAWG] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 04:06:18 -0000

Actually Joe, the rules clearly allow the case wehre an Independent 
Stream I-D disagrees with the IETF rough consensus.  Many such have been 
published.  Some of them were held so that they were not published until 
the relevant IETF work was published.

To be explicit, while the IESG can request that the ISE not publish 
something, and can provide a note they wish to have included if it is 
published, they do not have the power to enforce a do-not-publish if the 
ISE disagrees.
And Joe, you have lived aspects of this more closely than I have, so I 
am sure you are aware of it.


On 11/4/2019 9:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
>> If the authors want to publish it as an RFC so as to comment on other RFCs, they could approach the Independent Stream Editor.  That sort of publication is one of the explicit purposes of the Independent Stream.
> That only happens if the WG and IESG say this is out of scope for the IETF. I.e., the ISE isn’t an end-run.
> IMO, given the fact that this is squarely within TSVWG and there’s no consensus, the way forward is clear.
> Not every ID turns into an RFC, nor should it.
> Joe