Hi Russ, On 13/03/18 21:49, Russ Housley wrote: > The Prague discussion was about draft-green-...
Much more was discussed than just that one dead draft. In particular see the minutes for the more general question posed by the chairs. > Nick Sullivan summarized four concerns with that approach. See > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg > > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NJEsyOZ8S3m8fiGk3bJ_lDnL-dg> > > draft-rhrd-... addresses all four of these concerns. We had some > discussion on the mail list, which lead to -01 being posted. The problem you have however is that you're trying to square a circle, so picking any set of N objections to try to address will still leave you ending up with something unacceptable, for at least one of a bunch of reasons. Partly, that's because you need there to be a boundary between a data centre and the rest of the Internet that's meaningful to TLS, and no such boundary exists. (So the answer to Nalini's problems is: for applications causing you this particular pain within a data centre don't use TLS, find another way and while that might be painful for Nalini's consortium, it's the right answer, given the overall costs of anything else.) > I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach. I > would like to find out. Did you read the list traffic from Oct/Nov? I have no idea how you can be in doubt if you did. It's readily apparent that your draft has not caused a lot of people to change their minds. Do you agree? If so, then the conclusion is obvious, isn't it? S.
0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
