On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 03:35:43AM +0100, Dennis Jackson wrote: > On 24/07/2019 02:55, Bret Jordan wrote: > > As a professional organization and part of due diligence, we need to try > > and understand the risks and ramifications on the deployments of our > > solutions. This means, understanding exactly how the market uses and > > needs to use the solutions we create. When we remove or change some > > technology, we should try hard to provide a work around. If a work > > around is not possible, we need to cleanly document how these changes > > are going to impact the market so it can prepare. This is the > > responsible and prudent thing to do in a professional organization like > > the IETF. > > > > The IETF is for development of Internet Standards. If you want to > publish your (subjective) analysis of how a particular standard is going > to impact your market segment, there are any number of better venues: > trade magazines, industry associations, your company website, etc.
Actually, the Independent stream of the RFC series is purpose-built for individual commentary on the consequences of a particular standard [including in a particular segment], and would be superior (at least in my opinion) to any of the venues you list. (See RFC 4846.) But I believe the current ISE asks authors to try fairly hard to publish their work in the IETF before accepting it to the Indepndent stream. > > The draft that Nancy and others have worked on is a great start to > > documenting how these new solutions are going to impact organizational > > networks. Regardless of whether you like the use-cases or regulations > > that some organizations have, they are valid and our new solutions are > > going to impact them. > > This isn't a question of quality. The IETF simply doesn't publish > documents of this nature (to my knowledge). The IETF can publish whatever there is IETF consensus to publish. (And a little bit more, besides, though that is probably not relevant to the current discussion.) I don't have a great sense of what you mean by "documents of this nature". If you were to say "the IETF does not publish speculative and subjective discussion of possible future impact", I'd be fairly likely to agree with you (but I have also seen a fair bit of speculation get published). I'd feel rather differently about "the IETF does not publish objective analysis of the consequences of protocol changes on previously deployed configurations", and would ask if you think a document in the latter category is impossible for the TLS 1.2->1.3 transition. (My understanding is that the latter category of document is the desired proposal, regardless of the current state of the draft in question.) -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
