On 3/13/18 10:44 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > And then there are other options too, like another WG. Even from > Stephen's list of who is in agreement with him, I've received a few > messages saying their text wasn't what he thinks it was. More > discussion here would be good to figure out a way forward. The chairs > have not agreed to allow the work to go forward, but just the > discussions to determine next steps.
Part of the problem here, I think, is that it's not clear
what's under discussion - the general problem or this
specific draft. I tend to think that discussions of the
general problem will probably be unproductive and
polarizing, and that if there is a way forward on this
it's to have credible and specific technical proposals.
Remember that in terms of process we don't need to have
unanimity on a decision, but all serious technical
objections need to be addressed and resolved. So,
if someone has a draft that can eventually clear that
bar, proponents of allowing third parties to decrypt
TLS sessions have a way forward. (Unfortunately I
don't think this draft can make it through). At any
rate I would regret (a lot) seeing discussion meander
on over to the broader should-we-or-shouldn't-we question.
Melinda
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
