Hi Usama,
At 03:58 PM 22-04-2026, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
So the next thing is contacting FATT. Broadly speaking, I don't
really understand how the open standardization process can restrict
WG members from talking to the domain experts which include
developers and maintainers of the tools we are using. That doesn't
seem correct to me, because we are not talking about C or Rust here;
we are talking about tools like ProVerif and CryptoVerif, which only
a handful of folks in the whole world have expertise. Despite the
efforts of UFMRG, users of these tools are significantly dependent
on the handful of these folks.
So I kindly ask for clarification on the process under which WG
members are restricted from directly contacting the FATT, which we
settled to call a "design team" as per Sec. 6.5 of RFC2418 (as
mentioned in FATT process [0].) I don't see anything specific in
that section restricting the WG members from contacting the "design team."
The working group chairs or the Responsible Area Director have the
ability to appoint a set of expert volunteers to tackle a
problem. The set, which was usually a sub-group of a working group,
is known as a "design team". Those sub-groups have, over the years,
operated as closed groups, i.e. they have closed membership and they
have private discussions. The output, in this case it would be the
formal analysis, is subject to working group approval.
The procedures are silent about whether a working group participant
can contact a member of the sub-group. There isn't any requirement
in BCP 11 for the member of the sub-group to respond, if he/she was contacted.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
