Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Benoit, > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > > > Right. But my concern was that the text

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Benoit, On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. And we need to resolve this one before the current ADs step down. Regards, Benoit This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 for 2 so far today. Are we still tuning text in this draft?

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 for 2 so far today. Are we still tuning text in this draft? https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to publish, or agree to send

Re: [OPSAWG] Christian's review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-22

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2018, at 8:51 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > I am very skeptical of the justification for performance enhancing >> proxies in section 2.2.4. It develops the idea that having a

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks for the updated draft. Some responses below. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > DISCUSS > >session encryption that deployed more easily instead of no > >encryption. > > > > I think I understand what you are