On Mar 14, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I hum in the meeting is a meaningful way to find out what the
>> quiet people are thinking.
>
> And of course also any people who try pack out the room for any
> reason;-(
As long as the hum is treated as Pete describes in RFC 7282, this sho
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 dra
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 did. It's readily apparent
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 mind
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.
>> 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
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 text wasn't what he thinks it w
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 wa
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 isn't voting. If there's no agr
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 isn't voting. If there's no agreement in
either direction there's no agreement (and I hope the
10 matches
Mail list logo