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 way forward.  The chairs
> have not agreed to allow the work to go forward, but just the
> discussions to determine next steps.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that it's not clear
what's under discussion - the general problem or this
specific draft.  I tend to think that discussions of the
general problem will probably be unproductive and
polarizing, and that if there is a way forward on this
it's to have credible and specific technical proposals.
Remember that in terms of process we don't need to have
unanimity on a decision, but all serious technical
objections need to be addressed and resolved.  So,
if someone has a draft that can eventually clear that
bar, proponents of allowing third parties to decrypt
TLS sessions have a way forward.  (Unfortunately I
don't think this draft can make it through).  At any
rate I would regret (a lot) seeing discussion meander
on over to the broader should-we-or-shouldn't-we question.


Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
                 34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to