Subject: Re: [EToSat] TSVWG WGLC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-08, closes 23 October 2019

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:44:06 +0000

I actually think it's a pretty good summary, and delivers exactly what's
promised in the title.  OTOH I can also see that it's going to get bikeshedded
to death, and will probably never be editable into a form where people won't
complain about it no matter how many changes are made.  Alternatively, it'll
end up watered down to a point where no-one can complain any more but it won't
say anything terribly useful by then.

Perhaps it could be published as is with a comment that it represents the
opinions of the authors?  Although given that it's Informational and not
Standards-track or a BCP, that should be a given anyway.

Peter.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:34:58 -0800

> Standards-track or a BCP, that should be a given anyway.

Actually, no. Most IETF documents, even informational ones, bear a
statement that they have IETF Consensus.

See: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-3.2.1

-Ekr

---

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:40:48 +0000

Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> writes:

>Actually, no. Most IETF documents, even informational ones, bear a statement
>that they have IETF Consensus.

Ah, OK.  In that case publish it with a statement that commentators couldn't
agree on what it should say, which I think is better than watering it down to
a level where commentators can't disagree with what it says.  It's an
interesting document which makes good points, and worth putting out there
while it still has good points to make.

Peter.