Hi Ted, On 23/10/17 00:35, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Steve Fenter <steven.fente...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I have been saying to anyone who will listen that the IETF needs a >> private forum for enterprises, to enable them to come forward and >> discuss their real requirements. Without this input the IETF is >> trying to architect and engineer solutions without knowing the >> complete set of requirements, at least on the enterprise side. >> This results in sub-optimal design decisions (from an enterprise >> perspective), which in this case will break mission critical >> enterprise monitoring and troubleshooting systems. > > The reason we don't have that is that designing secure protocols in > secret isn't a trustworthy approach. Of course, you can always get > together privately.
Well, to be fair, that ask - for (literally!) secret handshakes does explain one part of this debacle that has puzzled me so far. We've seen the following interactions: snooping-proponents: "we need snooping, because <foo>" others: "that has all sorts of bad side-effects, e.g. A,B,C..." ... ...silence from snooping proponents... The ask for secrecy I think demonstrates that the silence in response to explanations of derived demonstrable damage is not due to a lack of understanding, but must be down to caring only about one's own "constituency" and not at all about the Internet more broadly. I think I now understand some of this better (but deplore it more), but am left more puzzled as to the what it was that inspired draft-rehired authors. S. > > > > > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
