Thanks Stephen And I would agree that I or no one else can effectively, officially or otherwise represent ALL ENTERPISES. In many cases (as I think you have witnessed), the very few of us who have showed up at IETF, are even frequently reluctant to represent our OWN Enterprise officially, due to many "Non Technical" factors. Unfortunate, but yet another reality of dealing with most large corporations and other large orgs.
But I can say that most large Enterprises are VERY similar in architecture, operation, products, and most of all the issues we seem to face. We are even MORE similar (scarily so), within particular industry categories. So there will be a good opportunity to get a pretty realistic view of Enterprise requirements, use cases, issues, etc., if IETF wants that, which I hope they do. Thanks again Mike -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:22 AM To: Ackermann, Michael <mackerm...@bcbsm.com>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3...@att.com>; Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> Cc: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz>; STARK, BARBARA H <bs7...@att.com>; Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com>; draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprec...@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; tls-cha...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09.txt> (Deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1) to Best Current Practice Hi Michael, On 04/12/2020 15:14, Ackermann, Michael wrote: > We (Enterprises) are not as involved as we should be in IETF, and that > is our own problem/fault. What I think irritates people like Stephen, I'm not irritated at all:-) > is that there have been situations where we finally try to get > involved and provide input/use cases, etc., but at the 11th hour or > after the ship has pretty much sailed. Getting involved late is just something that happens when one first gets involved in any new thing so is entirely ok. If I was irritated (and I'm still not:-), what would have caused that would be a claim that someone somehow represents all "Enterprises" and that nobody else has a clue what may be needed for such networks. I don't buy that at all and I guess never will, because it just isn't correct. Cheers, S. > > So as you say Deborah, I very much want to get more Enterprises > involved in IETF initiatives, but beyond that, being involved up > front in the process (perhaps even making positive contributions OMG), > rather than only whining about deployment/operational issues > on the back end. (or explaining why they exist, which is > essentially what I was doing on this issue ☹). > > How to accomplish this is a challenge and I think that is what Barbara > suggested taking off to the other list. > The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
