Re: [Uta] Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 2/20/15 1:43 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>>         The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete
>>         work on this document about best practices for TLS in
>>     general, and to
>>         initiate work on a separate document about opportunistic TLS.
>
>     No, I don't believe we've decided that UTA will be the place where
>     we develop a BCP on OS. [...]
>
>     I'd really really hope we disentangle that discussion from this
>     draft though, so please replace the last sentence with:
>
>                   "The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete
>     work on this document about best practices for TLS in general, and to
>     for work on a separate BCP document about opportunistic security
>     to be done later."
>
>
>
> FWIW:
> - That text is not mine; it has been in since -07.
> - I would personally be A-OK with UTA working on opportunistic TLS, 
> especially in the sense of providing advice on how to interop with old 
> stuff in ways most likely to result in TLS usage.
> - It's probably not a great idea to say that in this document
>
> How about:
> "The sense of the UTA Working Group was to complete work on this 
> document about best practices for TLS in general, and to leave 
> recommendations about opportunistic TLS for future work."

Or we could drop mention of the WG entirely:

"This document specifies best practices for TLS in general. A separate 
document with recommendations for the use of TLS with opportunistic 
security is to be completed in the future."

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]