And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts. spt
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:22, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu> > wrote: > > I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping > presentation. > > I would not call the discussed draft "the important business" - for me it's > anything but that. > > Regards, > Uri > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:11, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > >> I have two working groups already in the monday slot. I doubt I'm unique >> in this. It seems like you should put the important business in the slot >> that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot. It's >> hard to imagine how a discussion of the wiretapping thing could be anything >> other than a dance at the mic, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. >> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL >> <u...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: >> +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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
