On 11/5/17 7:14 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > My point here is that that's not the reason to reject the document. > The reason in this case is that there already exist better ways to solve > the problem, and the proposal would clearly make TLS 1.3 worse, even > though there is disagreement about how /much/ worse it would make it.
Right, the question is about the technical merits of the proposal.
If I'm recalling correctly the widespread view of STUN when it was
first brought in was that it was revolting. That may continue to
be the most widely-held view, but unlike the rhrd draft there was no
other workable solution at the time to an extremely pressing problem.
Anyway there's precedent for something most people don't like moving
forward and eventually being published as a standard if the technical
arguments are sound.
At any rate, the discussion of the proposal, if there is to be one,
belongs on the mailing list. Having the discussion and coming to
a conclusion 1) during a meeting 2) where none of the proponents
is present seems like an abuse of process to me (not to mention a
waste of meeting time). Furthermore it seems like the technical
merits of the rhrd proposal are thin enough that it's unlikely to
progress, anyway.
Melinda
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP fingerprint: 795A 714B CD08 F996 AEFE
AB36 FE18 57E9 6B9D A293
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
