Dear Melinda, > From: Melinda Shore <[email protected]> > Subject: [Trans] Gossip draft CFA closed > Date: August 7, 2015 at 3:02:28 PM EDT > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > > Hi, all: > > Thank you for your feedback on the call for working group > adoption of draft-linux-trans-gossip-ct. It's very clear > that there's widespread support for adoption, and that we've > both got people to work on the draft and to review it. Bryan > Ford raised some technical issues during the discussion but > those have been resolved (future revisions of the draft should > include some text clarifying the conditions under which the > data will be gossiped and what problems gossip is *not* > intended to solve).
I must object to your conclusion that the “technical issues” I brought up during the discussion “have been resolved” - at any rate, I consider them neither purely “technical issues” nor having “been resolved”, as should be eminently clear from my E-mails on the topic. As I stated clearly earlier, I feel that the entire gossip approach is fundamentally flawed. It’s not just some technical issues within the draft that can be easily fixed, but the whole approach. My concerns are with the strategy, not just minor “technical issues”. And similarly, I do not see how it can be concluded from the E-mail discussion that my concerns “have been resolved” (or even addressed). Any approach will add complexity to the system: a gossip protocol will, and a multisignature approach will. Have the advantages, disadvantages, and relative complexities of each of these approaches been weighed and considered in any way? Or was it somehow just “assumed as a given” since before I started participating that gossip was the right approach and no one is interested in questioning that now? I’ll grant that no one else on the list seems to be echoing my concerns with the gossip approach at the moment - so if you wish to close the call for adoption anyway over my objections, please feel free to do so; I assume that’s what the “rough” in “rough consensus” is for. But please do not mischaracterize my position as merely having raised “some technical issues” that “have been resolved.” Bryan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
