-decryption/
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh
wrote:
>
> It's my fault for the ambiguous wording, but in this context the quote
> from me reads as the opposite of my intent. To be more clear
- Prague where half of the room hummed that an internal solution is
>needed.
>
>
>
> No, this is not accurate.
>
>
>
> Half the room hummed **to continue discussion.** The discussion could
> still end with no action.
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elk
no clear consensus
> to shut the discussion down. It was not that work on internal solution is
> needed.
>
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www
ly sold and
> deployed in an enterprise because, as I said last time, this is too risky
> for the public Internet.
>
>
>
> So then, who is “we”? ☺
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
ers provide services to hundreds of thousands or millions of end users,
so uptime is critical.
Nalini
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:37 AM, nalini elkins
wrote:
> *>>* I hope that we can all work together to craft a solution. We don't
> want fragmentation and multiple DIY solutions.
&g
> This might be a good time to review RFC 7282
Thanks, Melinda! Re-reading!
Nalini
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 3/13/18 8:09 AM, nalini elkins wrote:
> > I agree that the room hummed to "continue the discussion".
>
> This might be a
ould know (since you
> are a Mentor coordinator), participation is on the basis of individuals,
> not corporations or consortia. Right?
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
ut this to engage, and will hopefully allow more direct
> discussions of the problems and possible solutions.
>
> Kudos to the US Bank guys for leading the way here.
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:13 PM, nalini elkins
> wrote:
>
>>
>>- >>"We" is a
ary to have a “speedy” solution.
> Again, I strongly disagree with this. The standard organizations haven’t
> even made TLS 1.0 illegal yet, as I said last time. What makes you think
> that something is needed in under five years? I asked that question
&g
has to be defined, it would make
> sense for the consortium (rather than the TLS WG) to define it.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Andrei
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
t tactics, it's called "consensus by exhaustion".
> (On the recent GNSO meeting this was briefly discussed as an issue within
> ICANN.)
>
>>
> ___
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis
ena, it can even be lives. I don't even see how you can
say what you are saying.
Let me ask you then, what are the use cases you find to be valid? Saying
that enterprises don't value security and privacy is really not terribly
useful to resolving any discussion.
Nalini
On Wed, Ma
ish we could actually talk to each other quietly and reasonably. This
is a very, very difficult problem.
Nalini
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 14/03/18 23:00, nalini elkins wrote:
> > The simple explanation is that people think they will have seri
And they would rather not pay for a solution to that problem.
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
i
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:17 PM, nalini elkins
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>- > Nalini, why don't you (the consortium) define the standard, then?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Indeed
PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 14/03/18 23:32, nalini elkins wrote:
> > But, it is a very difficult issue. If I can use a different analogy, if
> > the City of Monterey built a new sewer system and told me that to connect
> > to it, I had to build a new house, I woul
On 15/03/18 00:05, nalini elkins wrote:
>> There is no question of a smokey back room.
>I'm sorry to disagree so bluntly, but while I was an
>AD some of the people involved here requested that I
>meet them in private to discuss this topic before it
>had been raised o
its and increased protection will customers see?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
>
>
73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42
>
> _______
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
--
Thanks,
Nalini Elkins
President
Enterprise Data Center Operators
www.e-dco.com
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
etf.org&data=02%7C01%7CAndrei.Popov%40microsoft.com%7C30b7cfd6c111409f442b08d5e5bd3777%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636667523215031539&sdata=ixEPAZe51d1FhvdB9sQ8mzRHY04Blyx%2BIYjlFC%2Fo0dw%3D&reserved=0>
> .
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
&g
>
> Hi Nalini,
>
> On 10/07/18 04:50, nalini elkins wrote:
> > It would be nice to see some of this reflected in the draft rather than
> > only statistics on browsers. The real usage of these protocols is far
> > more complex.
>
> I didn't have time before
and share) your distrust of
anonymous data. I am at a loss as to how to proceed.
I am open to any constructive suggestions.
Thanks,
Nalini
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 11/07/18 06:45, nalini elkins wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >
&
22 matches
Mail list logo
