I am opposed. Anonymous email recommendations are not how the IETF operates.
Attached below is a note I wrote a month ago to the Chairs. None of the points
written there – and MOST of them were a summary of WG discussion – were
addressed.
From: Rich Salz mailto:rs...@akamai.com>>
Date: Tuesd
On Aug 25, 2024, at 13:56, Salz, Rich wrote:
I am opposed. Anonymous email recommendations are not how the IETF operates.I would also count myself as opposed. While I understand and am sympathetic to a reviewer possibly not wanting to get deluged in email or opinions unrelated to the task
Let's try to disentangle two questions:
1. Whether we should require this document to have some sort of formal
analysis prior to advancing
2. Whether the feedback from the triage panel should be handled in some
other way
I don't have a strong opinion on (2), but I don't see that the answer to
(1)
> Anonymous reviewers have a number of problems
The current triage panel is not anonymous, and the feedback they gave
on RFC8773bis included the complete input from all current members.
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 4:51 PM Bob Beck wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2024, at 13:56, Salz, Rich
> wrote:
>
>
> I think if this is truly a problem it is symptomatic to participation in
a working group as a whole and should be addressed across the board for
everyone.
I agree that it is a problem and should be addressed across the IETF.
Unfortunately we keep making changes to TLS 1.3 in the meantime, so. I
I agree with Ekr that the two things should be kept separate. In
addition, may I also suggest to keep this thread only for discussion
about #1, please? In this thread, the chairs are asking a simple
question, namely:
On 23.08.24 19:30, Joseph Salowey wrote:
Please respond to the list with a br
