Hi, Ben, On Jan 24, 2018 9:42 AM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 8:38 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF < spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Ben, > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:53 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > this change rather removed the restriction to not analyze features of security protocols (other than tcpinc); this is mainly the first sentence. As we see a closer integration of TLS with QUIC and we in general think that security features are important, it is actually an important change to allow us to do some additional work in this space. > > What Mirja said, but more than that - when I chartered TAPS, I was thinking about choosing between transport protocols, but that's morphing into choosing paths based on the way each potential path supports those transport protocols, and paths can differ in the way they treat transport security. So the working group should be including transport security in its analysis, and that was excluded in the current charter. > > Does that help? Yes, and it answers the question I just asked in response to Mirja’s email :-) Would it make sense to put “include transport security in it’s analysis” in the explicitly in-scope bits? That doesn't seem obviously wrong. We may have been more focused on removing the prohibition than saying what should happen, now that the prohibition has been removed :-) Let me talk to the TAPSters about specific wording. And thanks for asking. Spencer > > Spencer > > > Mirjas > > > On 24.01.2018 04:42, Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-taps-01-00: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-taps/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Do I read correctly that the only change from the previous charter is to remove > the paragraph about coordinating with TCPINC? If so, I'm not sure that change > is important enough to justify rechartering, but I won't get in the way if > other people agree with it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > Taps@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
