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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:43 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Ekr,
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:58 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
>> [e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>
>
> Thanks for the clue. I'm not paying close attention to process stuff these
> days.
>

That slipped by me too, and I am sure many more.


>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>


-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen