On 23/10/17 18:30, Ackermann, Michael wrote: > It is a huge proposition requiring change to virtually every platform > and application. Not to mention all the management, monitoring > and security platforms. It would be very expensive and time > consuming. And when they ask why this is necessary, it is because > the new version of the existing protocol is not backwards compatible, > which is something we have come to expect. All of these cost (*) arguments were raised in the draft-green iteration of this nonsense. None of them are any different when draft-green is replaced with draft-rehired.
The arguments did not convince before, and will not convince now. They did not garner rough consensus before and I'm pretty happy from list discussion that they don't seem to be doing so now. Why do you insist on wasting the time of the WG? That seems disruptive to me. For the chairs: - Various people have asked you to call a halt here. - I do so again. - Pretty-please even :-) It seems clear this latest version of the same old bad idea is going nowhere but /dev/null, as is proper. Please do declare the discussion done. S. (*) The arguments here are of course all about moving the cost to someone else, they are not about reducing costs. The proponents of moving the cost elsewhere of course never seem to admit that.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
