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

[[e-mail]]

Hi David, all,

I support this document to be published as an RFC.

The authors already addressed my comments in an early version of the document. I do have some minor nits that I will share with the authors offline.

Cheers,
Med

De : saag [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Black, David
Envoyé : mardi 9 juin 2020 03:42
À : [e-mail]
Cc : int-area; IETF SAAG
Objet : [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020


This email announces a limited-scope 3rd TSVWG Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:



    Considerations around Transport Header Confidentiality, Network

     Operations, and the Evolution of Internet Transport Protocols

                 draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt/



This draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.  This WGLC has

been cc:'d to the SAAG and INT-AREA lists courtesy of the breadth of

interest in this draft, but WGLC discussion will take place on the TSVWG

list ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) - please don't remove that list address if/when

replying with WGLC comments.



This 3rd WGLC will run through the end of the day on Monday, June 29,

2 weeks before the draft submission cutoff for IETF 108.



This 3rd WGLC is limited to the following two topics:



  1.  Whether or not to proceed with a request for RFC publication

of the draft.   The decision on whether or not to proceed will

be based on rough consensus of the WG, see RFC 7282.
During the 2nd WGLC, Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi expressed
strong views that this draft should not be published -  those
concerns have not been resolved and are carried forward to

this WGLC.  This email message was an attempt to summarize

those concerns:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/i4qyY1HRqKwm0Jme9UtEb6DyhXU/

Further explanation from both Eric Rescorla and David Schinazi

is welcome and encouraged to ensure that their concerns are

clearly understood.



  1.  Review of changes made since the -12 version of the draft that
was the subject of the second WGLC (e.g., whether or not they
suffice to resolve concerns raised during that WGLC, other
than overall objections to publishing this draft as an RFC):

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-12&url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15



Comments should be sent to the [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> list, although purely

editorial comments may be sent directly to the authors.  Please cc: the

WG chairs at [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>  if you would like the chairs to

track such editorial comments as part of the WGLC process.



No IPR disclosures have been submitted directly on this draft.



Thanks,

David and Wes (TSVWG Co-Chairs - Gorry is recused as a draft author)