Thank you for clearly writing down the process and continuing to improve
it. I particularly like the "understood" part, which is IMO a key
benefit of formal methods.
Also, thanks for clearly mentioning the current members in FATT process.
I do notice that current FATT is slightly different fro
Hiya,
On 06/11/2024 19:00, Salz, Rich wrote:
I still dislike encouraging private discussion of drafts - that's
not really in the spirit of the IETF at all.
While you're talking spirit versus letter of the rules, it is
explicitly allowed
Yes.
Just to note there's also the option to have a
> I still dislike encouraging private discussion of
> drafts - that's not really in the spirit of the
> IETF at all.
While you're talking spirit versus letter of the rules, it is explicitly
allowed in RFC 2418, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#page-19: In
order for a design team to re
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 10:00 AM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> The process/description is getting better thanks.
>
Yes, agree.
>
> Using the term liaison will confuse people so be
> better to change that.
>
Yep, it's correct English/French, but it has an IETF meaning that is more
specialized. But
Hiya,
On 05/11/2024 15:34, Joseph Salowey wrote:
There is an updated FATT available here:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt
This has taken a lot of the feedback we have received so far, but is still
a work in progress. There will be a little time to discuss in the meeting
Friday.
The process
To clarify here,
You can't have a reference here to " A "permanent" Design Group for TLS".
That term is wrong and confusing.
I don't disagree with all of the rest, which has changed since the last
round, but that does need to be fixed up.
Maybe Rich doesn't want to update his draft, but that nee
* I think Rich should retitle his document to "A 'permanent' Design Team
for TLS", but then we can get on with it.
I think my draft served my intended purpose, and while I prefer design team
over FATT, I don’t see a reason to push forward on my draft any more. (And
thanks for the nice word
I think Rich should retitle his document to "A 'permanent' Design Team for
TLS", but then we can get on with it.
The title is confusing because the first sentence is:
"This memo defines a permanent design team, as defined in [WGPROCS],"
That's a nit, but I think we want to be clear no process is
