It's my fault for the ambiguous wording, but in this context the quote from me reads as the opposite of my intent. To be more clear: what I meant was that while the proposals aren't making much progress, I don't mind that it's being discussed.
I'm happy to have mailing list threads on the topic and agenda time devoted to it (I don't go in person, but I do watch the videos). Since it's an area of such disagreement, I'd prefer to see /more/ discussion, not less. There's always hope of movement and progress on either side, and I think good discourse lessens the risk of dozens of fragmentary DIY solutions, which I think will be the worst kind of outcome of non-engagement. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie > wrote: > > Hiya, > > Just to be clear: I'm still waiting for the chairs and/or > AD to explain how the proposed discussion of this draft > is consistent with IETF processes, given the results of > the discussion in Prague (a very clear lack of consensus > to even work on this topic), and the discussion of the > -00 version of this late last year. IOW, I don't consider > my objection has been answered. > > In case people haven't got all the mails from last year > at the front of their minds, I went through them for you > and have provided links and selected quotes below. Yes, > the quotes are selected but I think do indicate that the > opposition to these ideas is as before. And there were > also the usual voices in support of weakening TLS in this > manner as well - a read of the thread clearly indicates > to me that discussion of this draft in London will, as > before, be a divisive waste of time and energy. > > Chairs: Please drop the agenda item, or explain how any > of this fits our process, because I'm just not getting > it. > > Thanks, > Stephen. > > > me, "IMO the WG shouldn't touch this terrible proposal with a > bargepole." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24493.html > > Randy Bush: "there are a lot of us lurkers out here a bit horrified > watching this wg go off the rails." (Different thread, but same topic) > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24539.html > > Uri Blumenthal: "+1 to Stephen" > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24542.html > > Rich Salz: "put this on hold for a year or two after TLS 1.3 is done" > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24544.html > > Ion Larranaga Azcue, "I really don't feel confortable with the approach > taken in this draft." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24562.html > > Hubert Kario: "to be clear: me too" (replying about hating the idea) > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24578.html > > Rich Salz: "I am opposed to the basic concept of injecting a third-party > into the E2E TLS process." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24585.html > > Florian Weimer: "I don't understand why this complicated approach is > needed." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24607.html > > Ben Kaduk: "I do not see any potential for a workable solution." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24620.html > > Uri Blumenthal: "why do we spend time discussing this draft?" > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24639.html > > Christian Huitema: "Maybe they have found ways to manage their > applications and servers without breaking TLS..." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24643.html > > Ted Lemon: "I think we should stop." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24649.html > > Andrei Popov: "deploying a weakened configuration of TLS 1.3 (without > PFS) would not meet the intent of those future mandates/requirements." > (On "industry need") > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24656.html > > Ben Kaduk: "The time I am spending on this thread is time that I am not > able to spend improving the TLS 1.3 document." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24660.html > > Dave Garrett: "Please, let's just let this mess die. " > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24667.html > > Uri Blumenthal "I'm against weakening the protocol, since there are > other ways to accomplish the perlustrator's mission" > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24670.html > Yeah, I had to look it up too:-) > https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/perlustrator > > Adam Caudill: "To be honest, I’m rather surprised that this group > continues to spend time on this." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24712.html > > Tony Arcieri, "Having worked (and presently working) for more than one > company of this nature, in the payments business no less, I would like > to restate that it's incredibly disingenuous to cite the need for > self-MitM capability as an "industry" concern." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24715.html > > Colm MacCárthaigh: "I don't have too strong an interest in this thread, > it's not going anywhere, and I don't mind that." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24720.html > > Peter Saint-Andre: "+1 to Stephen's request." (for chairs to close down > the discussion) > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24734.html > > Cas Cremers: " I think such a mechanism should not be part of the TLS > 1.3 standard." > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24885.html > > Karthikeyan Bhargavan: "I really don’t recommend any change to the TLS > 1.3 design to accomplish any of this" > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24903.html > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > -- Colm
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
