Hi Sean, Joe, WG also has this at its disposal: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00 Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility? Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other.
| Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: xima...@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
