On 4/12/18 9:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of this thread.
> In particular, I am hoping that some authors/proponents of leaving the
> document in the RFC Editor queue would speak to the question of the
> target scope, given the arguments that have been presented regarding
> the risk/reward tradeoff of the current narrow scope.
I'm also waiting to see if something new comes up in the
discussion, but it seems at this point we're just rehashing
previous discussion and nothing much is changing. In
particular, no new information is being contributed.
The one thing that could change my mind about this would be
if there was an intent to actually attack the problem described
in the changed scope (well, also if the proposed change could -
in fact - lead to the deprecation of the web PKI, but the chance
of that seems vanishingly small). Absent that I really don't
like adding goo to protocols on the off chance that at some
unforeseeable point in the future there's a possibility that
someone might actually want to use that feature. I think we've
got other ways of handling that eventuality and very little
assurance that it will ever happen, anyway.
Melinda
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
