Hi Sean, Joe, On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote: > I’ve posted the draft agendas: > > Monday: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tls-sessb
That includes: " TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min - 10min draft - Russ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/ - 10min discussion - Chairs - 10min wrap-up - Chairs " Consider this as an objection to that agenda item being given any time. I also have some questions below. This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in that space, despite there being quite a few fans of doing such work in the room that day. I don't see that anything has changed in the meantime. Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call, am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly different from what was discussed on the list so I see no need for any presentation nor discussion time. Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic? And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful? As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack of consensus to do anything in this space? If not, then what's the plan for ending this? Thanks, S. PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism, and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to the WG based on that euphemism.
0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
