Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Salz, Rich
➢ At any rate, the discussion of the proposal, if there is to be one, belongs on the mailing list. Having the discussion and coming to a conclusion 1) during a meeting 2) where none of the proponents is present seems like an abuse of process to me I asked for time so that we could

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Melinda Shore
On 11/5/17 7:14 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > My point here is that that's not the reason to reject the document.   > The reason in this case is that there already exist better ways to solve > the problem, and the proposal would clearly make TLS 1.3 worse, even > though there is disagreement about how

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Ted Lemon
On Nov 5, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > I didn’t say votes. Sure, but you did say "only the authors are interested" which to me seems to imply a comparison of numbers. Sometimes everybody who's interested in an idea is an author; that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Salz, Rich
* Consensus isn't about number of votes. However, I think we can say that although there seems to be some interest in making sure this use case is addressed, there are known ways of addressing it, and little interest in inventing a new way that weakens a new feature of tls 1.3 I didn’t say

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hiya, On 05/11/17 13:09, Ted Lemon wrote: > Consensus isn't about number of votes. However, I think we can say that > although there seems to be some interest in making sure this use case is > addressed, there are known ways of addressing it, and little interest in > inventing a new way that

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Ted Lemon
Consensus isn't about number of votes. However, I think we can say that although there seems to be some interest in making sure this use case is addressed, there are known ways of addressing it, and little interest in inventing a new way that weakens a new feature of tls 1.3 On Nov 5, 2017 14:03,

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Salz, Rich
So if the only people in favor of it are the draft authors, then we have consensus, right? ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-05 Thread Melinda Shore
On 11/2/17 8:40 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: >> Due to some unforeseen circumstances neither author of >> draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility is able to attend IETF 100. As a >> result, they’ve withdrawn their request for agenda time. > I think it would still be worthwhile to have time for the WG to see >

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-02 Thread Salz, Rich
➢ Due to some unforeseen circumstances neither author of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility is able to attend IETF 100. As a result, they’ve withdrawn their request for agenda time. I think it would still be worthwhile to have time for the WG to see if it can come to consensus on whether or

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-11-02 Thread Sean Turner
All, Due to some unforeseen circumstances neither author of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility is able to attend IETF 100. As a result, they’ve withdrawn their request for agenda time. Based on agenda requests received to date, we also believe that we will only need the 2.5 hour session on

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-10-30 Thread Sean Turner
In terms of full disclosure, Joe and I are going to ask for a short slot to discuss draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates. spt > On Oct 30, 2017, at 09:30, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is just a reminder to get those requests in. > > spt > >> On Oct 24, 2017, at 12:32, Sean

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-10-30 Thread Eric Rescorla
Yes, I expect so. -Ekr On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > Will there be an update from those folks looking at tweaks and deployment > issues? > > ___ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org >

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-10-30 Thread Salz, Rich
Will there be an update from those folks looking at tweaks and deployment issues? ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-10-30 Thread Sean Turner
This is just a reminder to get those requests in. spt > On Oct 24, 2017, at 12:32, Sean Turner wrote: > > All, > > You will have seen that the chairs requested two sessions for IETF 100 TLS > (on 20170929) and you will have also seen the that our request was granted > (on

[TLS] TLS@IETF100: Agenda Requests

2017-10-24 Thread Sean Turner
All, You will have seen that the chairs requested two sessions for IETF 100 TLS (on 20170929) and you will have also seen the that our request was granted (on 20171020). The sessions are currently scheduled as follows: tls Session 1 (2:30:00) Thursday, Morning Session I 0930-1200 Room