Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

Chair slides are up: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-tls-sessb-chairs-slides-06.pdf Further bash: I talked to Nick last night and since we have time on Monday he whipped up some slides on Exported Authenticators in TLS (aka

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

On 7/15/17 4:01 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension is getting moved back to Monday > because that’s the only time Melinda can make. No, I'm afraid that I *cannot* make it Monday, and need to have our slot stay on Wednesday. Melinda signature.asc Description:

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 09:46, Salz, Rich wrote: > > encrypting-SNI and DANE/DNSSEC draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension is getting moved back to Monday because that’s the only time Melinda can make. In Yokohama, I said encrypted SNI has occupied about 27 hours of WG time

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

Travel plans were made based on the published agenda, an Matt Green will not be on Prague on Monday. We should not discuss draft-green- without him. Russ > On Jul 15, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > I would *VERY VERY STRONGLY* like to see the static-dh draft be on

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

I would *VERY VERY STRONGLY* like to see the static-dh draft be on Monday, and all the Monday topics moved to the main scheduled slot on Wednesday, even if it means taking 5 minutes of each of encrypting-SNI and DANE/DNSSEC Those are technical topics, far more suited to the main event then the

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

The Secretariat is going to put out a revised IETF agenda tomorrow. I suspect we’ll be in the room that was allocated to RTCweb. spt > On Jul 14, 2017, at 16:35, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > > Sean, can you let us know what room the new session will be in when > you know? (Not

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

Sean, can you let us know what room the new session will be in when you know? (Not on the agenda.) On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:53, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL >> wrote: >> >> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:53, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean Turner wrote: >> >> And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts. > > My apology. We’re in agreement then. No worries I

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean Turner wrote: > > And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts. My apology. We’re in agreement then. ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts. spt > On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:22, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > wrote: > > I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping > presentation. > > I would not call the

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

> ... the IESG could also decline to allow such a WG item to > get published. That’s what I’d expect and hope for. > Better skip the Q/A at the WG meeting -- it makes no difference as to > determining consensus, +1 > and no one needs the other side screaming bloody > murder and judging one

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:10:47PM +0200, Ted Lemon wrote: > I have two working groups already in the monday slot. I doubt I'm unique > in this. It seems like you should put the important business in the slot > that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot. > It's hard

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

> As Stephen points out, it looks like we've allocated 80 minutes to the topic > of how to remove the forward secrecy guarantees that we've struggled for over > a year to introduce. That's more than we've allocated for the "main point of > the TLS WG", which are only 65 minutes combined. +1.

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

I have two working groups already in the monday slot. I doubt I'm unique in this. It seems like you should put the important business in the slot that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot. It's hard to imagine how a discussion of the wiretapping thing could be

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

+1 Current agenda does look backwards. IMHO, do as Stephen suggested. Regards, Uri Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:10, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > Hiya, > >> On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote: >> Please let us know your thoughts. > > 80 minutes

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

Hiya, On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote: > Please let us know your thoughts. 80 minutes for wiretapping is too much. Zero would be better. But if not... I'd suggest: 10 minutes for draft-green, 10 minutes to describe issues with that (i.e. the slot for which I continue to ask) and then 10

[TLS] TLS@IETF99 - Additional Session Added and Agenda Bash!

The chairs have requested an additional time on the IETF agenda for TLS. The Secretariat has allocated us the Monday @ 13:30-15:30 slot. Because the main point of the TLS WG are the TLS and DTLS drafts and the schedule was already announced, we want to leave those presentations on Wednesday.