All, The time has gotten away from me. I have to leave for the airport. I am taking my daughter to London & need to get us all packed & out of the house.
I will write respond to all at length either from the airport or in London. Rich, so sorry about your health issues. My best wishes for a full and complete recovery. Nalini On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > - I am happy to set up an informal session where all can meet and talk > quietly. Not everyone will be there on Sunday but maybe Monday breakfast > or during a break? Just let me know if you are interested & we can make > intros. > > > > I won’t be there (health issues), but I’ve already turned down such > private invites before. > > > > Standing up in front of a WG and talking about unpopular topics is hard. > As Richard said, kudo’s to USBank (and a BCBS org) for doing so. But if > you’re not willing to do the hard work, then you don’t get to have the IETF > address your concerns. > > > > I remember saying before that I firmly believe that the main, and > unstated, reason for wanting an IETF RFC on this is so that would-be > customers can point to vendors and ask for a common solution at a lower > price because the ability is now commoditized. With all due respect to the > people involved, I believe that is still the case. > > > > I have heard concerns that it is necessary to have a “speedy” solution. > Again, I strongly disagree with this. The standard organizations haven’t > even made TLS 1.0 illegal yet, as I said last time. What makes you think > that something is needed in under five years? I asked that question > before, too. > > > > > -- Thanks, Nalini Elkins President Enterprise Data Center Operators www.e-dco.com
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
