On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks ago,
received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting and has a lot
of unaddressed issues.
We would have had more time to discuss these issues if the author's
presentation had focused on their new draft, rather than splitting the
limited time with Trust Expressions, which I think we already knew was
not going to be a viable option.
Many participants in the meeting expressed a preference for an interim
so I would be surprised if there was a rough consensus for adoption.
Especially as the concerns are fundamental to the design rather than
about issues which could be addressed later.
However, I'm sure the chairs will be gauging the mood based on their own
conversations with WG participants and deciding accordingly.
PQ TLS on the other hand has a lot of open questions about things like
different variants of Merkle Tree Certificates that I would love to
flesh out further.
I completely agree, though I think the first task will be getting a
shared understanding of the challenges and requirements, but I'm excited
to talk about the different variants of MTC as well.
Best,
Dennis
N.B. I had to re-type this message. I"m not sure if the original is
going to show up on the list or not.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
