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

Thanks for your response. I am OK with your proposed changes. Warren, I think we're done. -Ekr On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi EKR, > > I'll assume you're happy with the previous responses. These are all > new comments and have

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

Hi EKR, I'll assume you're happy with the previous responses. These are all new comments and have been responded to and addressed. I requested that the updated version be posted pending approval. Responses inline. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > I have

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

I have reviewed the new version. Thanks for incorporating my comments. I have two substantive comment and a bunch of editorial suggestions. LMK if you would like me to put this in the tracker. SUBSTANTIVE for attack traffic, meeting regulatory requirements, or for other purposes. The

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

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:12 AM Eric Rescorla wrote: > Hi Warren, > > I am on travel today, but I expect to read this today or Friday. Can you > give me until Saturday? > Sure. W > Thanks, > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: >

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

Hi Warren, I am on travel today, but I expect to read this today or Friday. Can you give me until Saturday? Thanks, -Ekr On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > EKR, > I'm planning on clicking the "This document is approved" button before > the IETF101

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

EKR, I'm planning on clicking the "This document is approved" button before the IETF101 meeting unless I hear a clear signal that there is something that you *cannot* live with. Thank you again for your Abstain and all of your comments on the document, W On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Warren

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

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF >> wrote: >> > Hi, Benoit, >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 26,

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

Thanks for your responses. Inline responses to EKRs responses. I think there were some additional recent on list comments that still need to be addressed and any adjustments from this discussion. I just posted to the datatracker as it didn't seem like we needed to use github now that there

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

Thank you. -Ekr On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > No worries. Looking forward to your thoughts on my comments. > > > > Me too! I've created a repo >

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

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > No worries. Looking forward to your thoughts on my comments. > Me too! I've created a repo (https://github.com/wkumari/effect-encrypt) where I'll be placing the new version to all for easier viewing / diffs. W > -Ekr > >

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

No worries. Looking forward to your thoughts on my comments. -Ekr On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Kathleen Moriarty < kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I wasn’t able to task switch to editing the document yesterday with > other work obligations. > > Best, > Kathleen > > Sent

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

Sorry, I wasn’t able to task switch to editing the document yesterday with other work obligations. Best, Kathleen Sent from my mobile device > On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari

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

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > 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

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

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: > 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

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)

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] 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

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

Hi Eric, A quick update per the discussion on a TLS draft. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for your feedback, responses are inline. > > FYI - I posted another version, but expect at least one more iteration >

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

Hi Eric, Thanks for your feedback, responses are inline. FYI - I posted another version, but expect at least one more iteration after this version with additional comments and the ones we haven't gotten to yet. On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Eric

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

> If the IETF as a community objected to the content of this draft, > presumably there would ahve been significant dissent during the IETF > last call. my memory is that i commented once, supporting christian's eloquence during ietf last call. i commented yesterday supporting ekr's statement.

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

Let me ask a different version of Carlos (and maybe Randy's) point. If the IETF as a community objected to the content of this draft, presumably there would ahve been significant dissent during the IETF last call. It looked to me like the consensus in support of this was rough but clear.

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

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >>> Unfortunately, the fundamental concern that motivated my DISCUSS >>> remains: I do not believe that this document matches the consensus >>> of the IETF community. >> That's an interesting claim. >> If the process has not been

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

On 08.02.18 21:53, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 2/8/18 5:01 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: >> Without any judgement, this is an informational document, so it does >> not necessarily need to have IETF consensus for publication. > Generally I'm in favor of being pretty relaxed about informational

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

On 2/8/18 5:01 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: > Without any judgement, this is an informational document, so it does > not necessarily need to have IETF consensus for publication. Generally I'm in favor of being pretty relaxed about informational documents that describe a real thing in the

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

Without any judgement, this is an informational document, so it does not necessarily need to have IETF consensus for publication. Mirja > Am 08.02.2018 um 11:17 schrieb Randy Bush : > >>> Unfortunately, the fundamental concern that motivated my DISCUSS >>> remains: I do not

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

>> Unfortunately, the fundamental concern that motivated my DISCUSS >> remains: I do not believe that this document matches the consensus >> of the IETF community. > That's an interesting claim. > If the process has not been followed, this requires facts as opposed > to "believes". > We should

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

On 2/8/2018 6:04 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory

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

Hi EKR, Regarding phishing: > S 5.4. (I think you mean S 5.3, but this equally applies to section 5.5, so...) > It's pretty odd to talk about phishing without acknowledging that by > far the largest anti-phishing platform (Safe Browsing) operates in the > client, not be network interception

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

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to