WRT the draft, yes I think more formal analysis is likely warranted.
WRT Rich's complaint: I think the chairs would be wise to try to explicitly address the points he makes and that were raised at the IETF-120 session. I got the distinct impression that a bunch of active WG participants were not happy with the state of the triage panel thing, and also the distinct impression that the chairs weren't quite grokking that. (It can be hard to pickup the overall message from the front of the room sometimes.) My take on the panel is roughly: yes, I don't get why there seems no desire to collaborate with ufmrg (but I'm biased there:-), and I also think that the anonymity thing means we shouldn't take panel comments as seriously as ones made in public - but there is nothing preventing the chairs from encouraging panel members to just copy the list with their comments as the norm and handle any situation where someone can't do that as an exception. (I've also, as a sorta-bogus member of the the CFRG crypto panel, seen some issues with people taking CFRG crypto panel output more seriously than sometimes warranted - many of those reviews are very good, but not all are equal, and those reviews are not as directly affecting the IETF standards process, so what's ok there may not be ok here.) Cheers, S.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
