I vote for Option 1: Let's see if/how this changes existing proofs before we move to standards track. From a quick look, it doesn't seem like implementing this extension should cause anyone trouble, but we might as well be sure.
Chris P. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
