Hi Stephen, In the meeting in Prague there was interest in this problem space, but neither the consensus to accept or reject this work. The authors have revised their proposal to address some of the concerns raised by working group members and are asking to bring the new approach in front of the working group. I believe in this case this is the right thing to do even if it appears there is some repetition of topic. However, if the new approach fails to achieve significantly more support I believe the authors will need to find another path for their work that does not go through the TLS working group.
Cheers, Joe On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:21 AM, 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
