On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda.sh...@nomountain.net> 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 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.

I think the chairs made it clear that it is on the specific draft and
they just have 10 minutes to present.  I believe the slides are
already posted and include the use cases within them.  We've all spent
way more than 10 in this discussion ;-)

It's up to the WG to decide and it seems a few want to discuss it,
even from the list that Stephen says are not interested.  I think it's
better to let the discussion happen.


> Melinda
> --
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
>                  34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F


Best regards,

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to