Hello, Stephen. On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > I'm sorry, but I gotta say that answer seems to me both unresponsive > to the questions asked and unconvincing. > > On 08/03/18 23:08, Joseph Salowey wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> In the meeting in Prague there was interest in this problem space, but >> neither the consensus to accept or reject this work. > > Without rough consensus to adopt, the work is not adopted. > > But your statement above isn't accurate - it wasn't "this work" > (as in this draft) that was discussed in Prague, but rather the > entire idea of weakening TLS in these ways - quoting from the > Prague minutes [1]: > > "The main question: Is this subject something that the WG should > consider?"
The hummed answer to that question was very close to 50/50 in the room, inconclusive. > > There is clearly no consensus to adopt *any* work in this space, > whether that be draft-green or this latest iteration from Russ > and Ralph. It was clear that there was no consensus to adopt draft-green and that is considered dead in the water, we agree there. Since there was interest (50% of the room) to consider work in this space, I agree with the chairs assessment to allow this presentation. I am confident they will work on any hums to carefully assess next steps and if any future proposals belong in this WG or elsewhere. > > I see nothing whatsoever to indicate any significant change in > sets of opinions since Prague. > > What makes you think iterating on yet more proposals like this > will ever conclude? If there's no evidence of that we ought not > waste the time and energy. Can you point at any change that > could possibly indicate that this bun-fight is worth doing yet > again? > >> 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. > > What significant change has there been since -00 of Russ and Ralph's > draft? I see nothing major there. that -00 was debated on the list > which is the primary place for discussion. My read of that set of > threads it that it pretty clearly showed that the same folks have > the same opinions with no significant movement. Can you point at > some evidence to the contrary? If not, we shouldn't bother to waste > more time on this. > > If instead you mean Russ and Ralph's draft differs from draft-green, > then see above - it wasn't only draft-green that was rejected in > Prague, but the entire idea of adopting work in this space, which > includes Russ and Ralph's -00 and -01. > > That the authors have asked for time counts for nothing, when the > WG have no consensus to work in this space. If just asking for time > does matter, then I'll now publicly repeat my request for time > to refure the assertions that'll be made for breaking TLS. You said > no to my request, so what's different about one that relates to a > draft that has been debated on the list and attracted significant > negative comment? > >> I believe in this case this is the right thing to do even >> if it appears there is some repetition of topic. > > It is not "some repetition" - this topic has been debated f2f and > on this draft on the list and there's zero evidence of significant > changes in opinion, in fact the opposite. Can you point at any > such evidence? If not, your position as chairs seems illogical. > >> 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. > > But the WG has already demonstrated a lack of consensus to even > consider "work in this space" (your choice of words I believe.) > That should be enough. What does or doesn't happen outside the > TLS WG is not at issue here. > > To reiterate, in Prague you asked "The main question: Is this subject > something that the WG should consider?" The result was a clear lack of > any consensus to work in this space, which means not working in this > space. Yet here we are again giving agenda time to highly controversial > proposals in this space. > > Please: just take this off the agenda and let the WG do it's real work. > > Thanks, > S. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-tls Relevant comment from minutes: Hums: No clarity whatsoever. Seemed pretty even. Best, Kathleen > >> >> 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 > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
