Stephen, More on other points later. I am getting pretty tired as am jet lagged.
>I am just fine with talking openly on the mailing list, as >per IETF processes. I see no benefit in smokey back room >discussions here at all, and only downsides to such. You know, this issue of side or quiet conversations keeps coming up. Let me try to clarify what I feel is a misunderstanding. In other WGs, we talk to each other sometimes in small groups, sometimes one to one to try to clarify things. The result ends up in the draft or the public email list, as appropriate. There is no question of a smokey back room. I remember a while back when I had a lengthy disagreement with someone which kept not getting resolved, someone (actually, Al Morton - dear sweet guy!) took me by the scruff of the neck and made the two of us sit down together with him. In half an hour, we resolved the point and were able to continue with the draft. If we had kept throwing things at each other, as it is easy to do via email, who knows how long the conflict would have lasted. I learned a valuable lesson that day. So, I am not trying to subvert the process as some seem to imply. Talking to each other f2f actually seems to me to be one of the points of journeying quite so far and spending so much money to come to an IETF meeting. (Having said that, the "journeying so far part" or plane trip is catching up with me! More tomorrow.) Nalini On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > On 14/03/18 23:32, nalini elkins wrote: > > But, it is a very difficult issue. If I can use a different analogy, if > > the City of Monterey built a new sewer system and told me that to connect > > to it, I had to build a new house, I would scream! > > Analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions, merely to illustrate. > That analogy doesn't help illustrate anything for me fwiw. > > > TLS is used in many, many places. The Internet is critical to the > > businesses of the world. > > Yes. Both fine reasons to not mess about with, weaken or > try break the TLS protocol. > > BTW - while you and others may constantly over-claim and > say your consortium represents "enterprises," I assume you > do not claim to represent all "business." ;-) > > > You can't just say use something other than > > TLS. > > Yes. I can. Kerberos and IPsec are used within many enterprise > networks. TLS is not the only tool in the toolbox. > > If your consortium want a multi-party security protocol that > does not affect other folks' security as you seem to claim, > then that is the obvious route to explore. And that protocol > needs to be non-interoperable with TLS (maybe even non-confusable > in some stronger sense) IMO in order to avoid the risks that > breaking TLS would result in us all taking. > > > Or don't use the Internet. It's not so easy. > > I never said that. Why invent something like that? > > > I wish we could actually talk to each other quietly and reasonably. This > > is a very, very difficult problem. > > I am just fine with talking openly on the mailing list, as > per IETF processes. I see no benefit in smokey back room > discussions here at all, and only downsides to such. > > S. > > > -- 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
