On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 02:13:37AM +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> #1 I don't get why it's not possible for Postfix to determine the best
>way to manage tickets based on the destination port to which the
>ClientHello is sent. I totally get why that won't solve 100% of
>cases, but it
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:07 PM Nico Williams
mailto:n...@cryptonector.com>> wrote:
A substantive issue was raised. Until that is disposed of through
normal consensus-finding mechanisms, there is no consensus for the I-D
to progress. That's how the process works.
* Explain your
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:30 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
> *>*Not sure "several" is the correct term. There are some mailing list
> messages about the topic.
>
>
>
> A few people who are heavily involved in this WG have agreed this is an
> issue, and a few people aren’t. Shrug. As Nico said, time for
>Not sure "several" is the correct term. There are some mailing list messages
>about the topic.
A few people who are heavily involved in this WG have agreed this is an issue,
and a few people aren’t. Shrug. As Nico said, time for a consensus call or
more likely a discussion in Vancouver. I
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:21 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>
>- If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last
>call, it can be indefinitely postponed.
>
>
>
> No, the WG can get consensus on not expanding scope.
>
That's true, but there's no need to stop if the expanded
* If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call,
it can be indefinitely postponed.
No, the WG can get consensus on not expanding scope.
It’s not great that this came up with WGLC, but several folks in the WG now
recognize that this is an important use-case and
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:14 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> I have no particular position about this draft but
> am curious about 2 things:
>
> #1 I don't get why it's not possible for postfix to
> determine the best way to manage tickets based on the
> destination port to which the
Hiya,
I have no particular position about this draft but
am curious about 2 things:
#1 I don't get why it's not possible for postfix to
determine the best way to manage tickets based on the
destination port to which the ClientHello is sent. I
totally get why that won't solve 100% of cases, but
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:07 PM Nico Williams wrote:
>
> A substantive issue was raised. Until that is disposed of through
> normal consensus-finding mechanisms, there is no consensus for the I-D
> to progress. That's how the process works.
>
Explain your reasoning.
thanks,
Rob
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:59:23PM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> As a point on the process, I don't think anyone is proposing
> rubber-stamping. We are instead only suggesting that a set of work
> that has consensus does not need to be held up by adding new work that
> does not have consensus.
A
> On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:53 PM, Tommy Pauly
> wrote:
>
> Thus, the working group can progress with the tightly-scoped document that it
> has consensus on, and leave other use cases to future documents.
Such a deferral may be desirable and viable in cases where the
features are sufficiently
Hi Nico,
As a point on the process, I don't think anyone is proposing rubber-stamping.
We are instead only suggesting that a set of work that has consensus does not
need to be held up by adding new work that does not have consensus.
The outcome of points raised during a WGLC does not need to
Hi Viktor,
> On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>> If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call, it
>> can be indefinitely postponed.
>
> I'm not proposing a change of scope. The document
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:16 PM Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Nico Williams
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:58:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:56 PM Nico Williams
>> wrote:
>> > > Viktor's comment came before the end of WGLC, so the WG
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 07:47:57PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:43:36PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:24 PM Viktor Dukhovni
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the scope of a document can be
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:43:36PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:24 PM Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > >
> > > If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call,
> > it can be indefinitely postponed.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:24 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> >
> > If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call,
> it can be indefinitely postponed.
>
> I'm not proposing a change of scope.
> The -04 document
> On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:15 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call, it
> can be indefinitely postponed.
I'm not proposing a change of scope. The document specifies how a client
and server negotiate the number of tickets the server
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:15:40PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> If the scope of a document can be continually expanded during last call, it
> can be indefinitely postponed.
There is no attempt to postpone, and the WGLC has finished. No new
issues will be raised. But the ones that were raised
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:58:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:56 PM Nico Williams
> wrote:
> > > Viktor's comment came before the end of WGLC, so the WG needs to
> > > consider his comments,
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:58:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:56 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> > Viktor's comment came before the end of WGLC, so the WG needs to
> > consider his comments,
>
> Yes.
>
> > and needs to reach consensus.
>
> No. This draft should move forward.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:56 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 09:06:12AM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> > First off, thanks for the lively discussion on ticket reuse! I think
> > it's a valid use case and something that should continue to be
> > discussed.
> >
> > However, for the
+1 to what Nico says.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 09:06:12AM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> First off, thanks for the lively discussion on ticket reuse! I think
> it's a valid use case and something that should continue to be
> discussed.
>
> However, for the purposes of the WGLC for this draft,
>
That sounds great. Note that the linked IESG statement says:
- the membership of the design team must also be public and posted to the
mailing list.
- any design team that lasts for more than a few months should make regular
public reports on what they are doing.
It sounds like this design team
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 09:06:12AM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> However, for the purposes of the WGLC for this draft,
> draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests, it may be best to separate the
> conversation. It seems that the negotiation of ticket reuse would be
> best served by another document that could
First off, thanks for the lively discussion on ticket reuse! I think it's a
valid use case and something that should continue to be discussed.
However, for the purposes of the WGLC for this draft,
draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests, it may be best to separate the conversation. It
seems that the
Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the draft charter! It’s all been
incorporated in the version on GitHub [1]. We’ll work with Ben in moving this
to the next step.
Thanks,
Chris, on behalf of the chairs
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/wg-materials/blob/master/charter/charter.md
On Mon,
Thanks to everyone who volunteered to participate in the external PSK design
team [0]. We will send off a kickoff email to the group soon. Note that we do
not expect the design team to finish their work by IETF 107 given the short
amount of time remaining before that meeting.
Thanks,
Sean
[0]
test only
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:00:39PM +0200, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
>
> > On 30 Jan 2020, at 22:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30/01/2020 17:57, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >> Hi folks.
> >>
> >> In case you’re not following GitHub, there was an issue with a brief
> >> discussion ([1]) and a
> On 31 Jan 2020, at 14:26, Hubert Kario wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2020 21:08:39 CET, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> On 30/01/2020 17:57, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> Hi folks.
>>> In case you’re not following GitHub, there was an issue with a brief
>>> discussion ([1]) and a resulting pull
> On 30 Jan 2020, at 22:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
>
> On 30/01/2020 17:57, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Hi folks.
>>
>> In case you’re not following GitHub, there was an issue with a brief
>> discussion ([1]) and a resulting pull request ([2]).
>>
>> If there are no objections by late next
On Thursday, 30 January 2020 21:08:39 CET, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 30/01/2020 17:57, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi folks.
In case you’re not following GitHub, there was an issue with a brief
discussion ([1]) and a resulting pull request ([2]).
If there are no objections by late next week, I will
34 matches
Mail list logo
