All, In London now & back on email:
- >> Nalini, why don't you (the consortium) define the standard, then? > Indeed, if a “TLS13-visibility” standard has to be defined, it would make sense for the consortium (rather than the TLS WG) to define it. I completely disagree. Here is why I would not prefer that route: 1. Multiple standards are likely to diverge. Take the case of India, we have over 700 dialects. Many of them started with the same root language. It has gotten so villages 10 miles apart cannot talk to each other. We use English (a clearly non-native language!) to communicate. I could see the same happening with TLS and Consortium-TLS. Not a happy thought for interoperability. 2. The TLS WG of the IETF has many of the world's experts in defining such protocols. The years of collective expertise is remarkable. We want to work with the TLS group not try to recreate it. 3. The reason I support the enterprises and their voice in TLS is because I am naive enough to actually believe in the IETF. I believe that technical truth matters. That it is not actually the Vendor Engineering Task Force. That is a group of the vendors, by the vendors and for the vendors. I could see when this whole thing with taking away RSA was happening that correct though it may be, it was going to cause enormous disruption for many, many people in the commercial world. You may not believe it, but I am actually doing this because I really believe that we need one set of standards that everyone can use. I want it to be in the TLS WG. I want the TLS WG to be credible and succeed and I want the IETF to succeed. I believe that the Internet needs it. 4. Again, believe it or not, the TLS WG needs the enterprises. Of course, this is all my opinion only. These enterprises are a huge group of users of the IETF protocols and TLS in particular. The feedback of users is irreplaceable. Who are we building the protocols for if not the users? Sure, there are multiple sets, but these are a very large group. And, OK, maybe they don't state every need properly, let's try to help them. When I was designing products, I didn't expect the customer to come up with the design for the screen or the code. They don't have the skills to do that. They provide feedback and come up with requirements. I do the code design. Any organism which does not take feedback is not likely to thrive in the long term. Again, I am asking everyone to be open to working together. Nalini On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > - "We" is a consortium of organizations. I would say over 50 so > far. They operate large data centers. They are in manufacturing, > insurance, finance, and others. > > > > - Nalini, why don't you (the consortium) define the standard, then? > > > > Indeed, if a “TLS13-visibility” standard has to be defined, it would make > sense for the consortium (rather than the TLS WG) to define it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrei > -- Thanks, Nalini Elkins President Enterprise Data Center Operators www.e-dco.com
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
