Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

Russ, On 14/03/18 03:03, Russ Housley wrote: > Stephen: > >>> I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach. I >>> would like to find out. >> >> Did you read the list traffic from Oct/Nov? I have no idea how you >> can be in doubt if you did. It's readily apparent that your

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

Hi, > On Mar 13, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Stephen: > >>> I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach. I >>> would like to find out. >> >> Did you read the list traffic from Oct/Nov? I have no idea how >> you can be in doubt if you

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

Stephen: >> I do not know if the TLS WG will want to adopt this approach. I >> would like to find out. > > Did you read the list traffic from Oct/Nov? I have no idea how > you can be in doubt if you did. It's readily apparent that your > draft has not caused a lot of people to change their

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

Hi Russ, On 13/03/18 21:49, Russ Housley wrote: > The Prague discussion was about draft-green-... Much more was discussed than just that one dead draft. In particular see the minutes for the more general question posed by the chairs. > Nick Sullivan summarized four concerns with that approach.

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

>> Stephen, the opposite PoV is equally valid. There was no consensus in >> Prague NOT to work on the topic. The mood of the room was evenly >> divided. > > To clarify, this isn't voting. If there's no agreement in > either direction there's no agreement (and I hope the default > in the IETF is

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/13/18 10:44 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> And then there are other options too, like another WG. Even from >> Stephen's list of who is in agreement with him, I've received a few >> messages saying their

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

On 3/13/18 10:44 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > And then there are other options too, like another WG. Even from > Stephen's list of who is in agreement with him, I've received a few > messages saying their text wasn't what he thinks it was. More > discussion here would be good to figure out a

Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/13/18 6:48 AM, Jim Reid wrote: >> Stephen, the opposite PoV is equally valid. There was no consensus in >> Prague NOT to work on the topic. The mood of the room was evenly >> divided. > > To clarify, this