I agree that an interim focused on this topic would be a good idea. IMO the best place to start would be to try to build some consensus on which problems we want to solve (including whether existing approaches are sufficient) rather than on the details of specific proposals. Once we've done that, the WG will be better positioned to address those problems.
-Ekr On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:47 PM Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek= 40digicert....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > I agree with this. > > Also, the poll that was done at the TLS session is prone to being > misunderstood. > > There was a poll about a preference between the two drafts, but the > question > of > whether either of the drafts is necessary was skipped. I don't think it's > fair > to do > a presumptive close on that unaddressed question. > > Someone asked on the chat, something along the lines of "does anyone other > than > Chrome want this?" So the question is out there and deserves an > intelligent > answer. > > I happen to be one of the people who perhaps does want something like > this, > but > I want to have a full discussion on where we're going and why, instead of > prematurely > focusing on any particular draft or solution before we know what > problem(s) > we're > trying to solve. > > I realize Google has spilled a lot of electrons on these questions, and I > think everyone > deserves an appropriate amount of time to digest and think through the > complex > issues > these drafts raise. > > And I think and interim to focus on clarifying these important issues > would be > helpful. > > -Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrei Popov <Andrei.Popov=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:49 PM > > To: Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Dennis Jackson > > <ietf=40dennis-jackson...@dmarc.ietf.org>; TLS List <tls@ietf.org> > > Subject: [TLS]Re: Discussions on Trust Anchor Negotiation at IETF 120 > > > > I agree that an interim meeting would be useful. It seems unlikely that > we > > will > > make much progress on the mailing list alone. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrei > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 9:00 AM > > To: Dennis Jackson <ietf=40dennis-jackson...@dmarc.ietf.org>; TLS List > > <tls@ietf.org> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS]Re: Discussions on Trust Anchor Negotiation at > IETF > > 120 > > > > >The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks > > >ago, received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting > > > > I strongly agree with this. Well, actually, everyone should be able to > agree > > with this because it's two factual statements. :) > > > > I think the challenge of having an interim will be that one group will > want > > to > > discuss the details of the proposal, while another group will want to > > discuss > > the details of the problem we are trying to solve. I hope the chairs > will be > > able > > to make things explicit and keep the discussions on-topic. > > > > If the authors share Sophie's opinion, they could withdraw the Trust > > Expressions draft and just leave Trust Anchors as something to be > discussed. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
