On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 6:52 PM, nalini elkins <nalini.elk...@e-dco.com> wrote:
> > 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. > Why is there any need for interoperability between TLS and Consortium-TLS? TLS is designed to be secure and reliable, and it's clear that Consortium-TLS finds such goals problematic. Yet I fail to see why that's a problem, since the claimed goal is that Consortium-TLS would only be used within a single enterprise/datacenter, and thus would never need to interoperate with a world that valued security and privacy.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
