I'm not sure that this is a productive framing: "we’re really asking for a
verdict on trust negotiation as a mechanism". Trust anchor negotiation is
already deployed. It takes the form of chain building, cross signing,
and/or client fingerprinting. At the interim, the presenters went through
many o
Salz, Rich writes:
> Well Dan, you claim to have an authoritative and binding source that
> disagrees with what I and others have been saying. And you don't quote
> them directly.
As I wrote: "naming the source here would be risky given threats by the
WG chairs (currently under appeal), so I'm not
> I asked what the authorization is under the IETF standardization process
> for the (unclear and unusual) procedure that the chairs are following:
> "Can the WG chairs please clarify which procedure from RFC 2026 (or from
> RFCs updating RFC 2026) is being followed here?"
It seems to me -- and j
Well Dan, you claim to have an authoritative and binding source that disagrees
with what I and others have been saying. And you don't quote them directly. I
don't accept that, any more than you would accept my claim to have built a CRQC
in my basement. And didn't we just go through this kind of
Hello,
At 12:19 AM 21-12-2024, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
Salz, Rich writes:
> No, the IETF does not require controversies to be resolved. It
> requires "rough consensus."
I don't know what dividing line you're drawing here.
Whatever terminology is used, WG action requires general agreement. This
d
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 02:14:50PM -0800, Devon O'Brien wrote:
> We have cut a new -03 version of the Trust Anchor Identifiers draft:
>
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids-03.txt
>
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids/
>
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 9:40 AM Salz, Rich
wrote:
>
> > I asked what the authorization is under the IETF standardization process
> > for the (unclear and unusual) procedure that the chairs are following:
> > "Can the WG chairs please clarify which procedure from RFC 2026 (or from
> > RFCs updating
S Moonesamy writes:
> Eric Rescorla pointed out yesterday that the procedures under which a
> working group operates is described in RFC 2418.
RFC 2418 does _not_ update RFC 2026, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3". My question is about compliance with the standards process:
"Can the W
On Sat, Dec 21, 2024 at 2:09 PM Brendan McMillion <
brendanmcmill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure that this is a productive framing: "we’re really asking for a
> verdict on trust negotiation as a mechanism". Trust anchor negotiation is
> already deployed. It takes the form of chain building, c
Hi,
This took a while to pull together, but Dennis has just published a fairly
comprehensive look at the question of trust negotiation:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jackson-tls-trust-is-nonnegotiable/
This is a response to the proposal to improve trust negotiation in TLS, in
partic
Salz, Rich writes:
> No, the IETF does not require controversies to be resolved. It
> requires "rough consensus."
I don't know what dividing line you're drawing here.
Whatever terminology is used, WG action requires general agreement. This
doesn't necessarily mean unanimity, but the WG is obliged
11 matches
Mail list logo
