➢ 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
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
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.
* 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
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
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,
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
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 result, they’ve withdrawn their request for agenda time.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
>
➢ 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they’ve withdrawn their request for agenda time.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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo