On 24/10/17 20:31, Ted Lemon wrote: > But it's delaying other work, because people who could be doing > useful work in the IETF are engaging on this topic instead. I'm not sure of the extent to which my work in the IETF is useful or not, but it is certainly the case that these repeated proposals have consumed the cycles I have for that work. As both Ted and Ben have said this I know I'm not alone in that, and the volume of mail on the topic alone shows that others are spending valuable time rebutting the ongoing break-TLS show.
Whether or not any of us would have contributed to TLS1.3 or DTLS1.3 being done sooner or better instead is another question, but the real linkage to TLS1.3 here is that if any of these bad ideas did achieve more that forcing us to oppose them, and the WG went mad and adopted any of it, then that would surely and fully muck up TLS1.3 and DTLS1.3, both in terms of timing and I believe in terms of utility. (Who'd want a new TLS version that's designed as broken?) S.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
