+1 Current agenda does look backwards. IMHO, do as Stephen suggested.
Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:10, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > Hiya, > >> On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote: >> Please let us know your thoughts. > > 80 minutes for wiretapping is too much. Zero would > be better. But if not... > > I'd suggest: 10 minutes for draft-green, 10 minutes > to describe issues with that (i.e. the slot for which > I continue to ask) and then 10 minutes discussion. If > we assume the folks in the room have read the list and > the draft that should be plenty. > > If we assume they haven't read the list, then it's more > important that the counter-arguments be given sufficient > time. > > So your draft agenda seems to get that backwards to me, > in that it allocates 40 minutes for a sales-pitch and > then 40 minutes where we bitch about that at the mic > interspersed with proponents repeating bits of the sales > pitch. That might be more amusing for us all, but seems > like a worse use of time to me. > > Cheers, > S. > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
