Hi, Thanks for all the discussions and resolution. I will now move both of the QUIC-OPS draft forward.
//Zahed > On 7 Apr 2022, at 00:07, Brian Trammell (IETF) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Al, Warren, all, > > Have just published -16 of manageability containing these and other PRs (and > -16 of applicability, which adds only last call review acks). > > I think we’re ready to go the IESG now. > > Thanks, cheers, > > Brian > >> On 5 Apr 2022, at 23:32, MORTON JR., AL <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> From: Warren Kumari <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:00 PM >> To: Brian Trammell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: MORTON JR., AL <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Gorry >> Fairhurst <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; Paul Vixie <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >> [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>; Mirja Kuehlewind >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; >> Lucas Pardue <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>; QUIC WG <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Subject: Re: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of >> draft-ietf-quic-manageability-14 >> >> Hi Brian, Al, Mirja, et al, >> >> Just a quick note to say thank you to all for this conversation and working >> towards some sort of consensus. >> >> I personally think that the PRs that Brian has created are helpful, and are >> looking good. There is a definite, and ongoing tension between the >> operators' need to see into the traffic for management/filtering/malware >> protection/etc; and the users' needs for privacy - this tension makes these >> sorts of discussions somewhat fraught, and I'd like to thank everyone again >> for trying to see each other's viewpoints, and work towards text / a >> solution that we can all live with. >> >> While this compromise might not be perfect, is it good enough that we can >> all live with it? >> W >> [acm] >> WFM, thanks, >> Al >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 7:04 AM, Brian Trammell <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Al, Lucas, all, >> >> I think I’ve distilled down this thread into two PRs: >> https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/pull/466 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/pull/466__;!!BhdT!ja5YmdO4uaBZJglvL3utBGoizA3beR66DhMXcTXFI3U9srTnu6td0NOfpRKI_PKDB6jYUaOgoBb1$> >> on “recommendation” language generally, and >> https://github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/pull/467 >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/quicwg/ops-drafts/pull/467__;!!BhdT!ja5YmdO4uaBZJglvL3utBGoizA3beR66DhMXcTXFI3U9srTnu6td0NOfpRKI_PKDB6jYUSWzM0NT$> >> rephrasing recommendations not to switch on version into an analysis of the >> tradeoffs (thanks Lucas for your help with these!). Please have a look and >> let me know whether those resolve this discussion. >> >> Thanks, cheers, >> >> Brian >> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
