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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

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.

Best,

Spencer