On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 05:19:46AM +0100, Dennis Jackson wrote: > > > On 24/07/2019 04:13, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > 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. > > I was thinking of 'published by the IETF' to mean the IETF stream.
Thanks for clarifying (more below). > Publishing in the Independent stream, without any proper review, > consensus or claim of fitness is a different matter altogether. My understanding is that the ISE insists on getting at least three reviews from knowledgable people in the field as a condition of publication. I don't know what constitutes "proper review" to you, but I do believe that the ISE takes the job seriously. > >>> 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). > > This was my intended meaning. Thanks (again) for clarifying. > 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.) > > The authors initiated this discussion by stating their draft was stable > and requesting publication. Consequently, I think it must be judged on > the current state, rather than the desired outcome. Sure, and I appreciate the frank comments; I hope the authors do as well. However, my and the chairs' job is to tell them something like "make these changes and come back" or "make these changes and go to the ISE", so I have to seek feedback on a broader question than just "is it ready to go right now". > Even considering your more generous interpretation... the objective > discussion is only 3 out of 15 pages and none of the 5 claims appears to > be correct. (As others have pointed out). In light of my previous remark, I'll try to summarize that it sounds like you think that it's not worth trying to make all the changes that would be needed to meet your expectations for the output of the TLS WG. Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
