On Sat, Apr 25, 2026 at 6:24 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Rob, > On 23.04.26 02:07, Rob Sayre wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 4:34 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> As I said in the meeting, I think there are reasonable arguments to be >> made about how the FATT ought to engage with the WG, and ceteris >> paribus, I think it's better for things to be open. >> > > I agree with Ekr here, > > Mind clarifying which part you agree with: > > 1. "there are reasonable arguments to be made about how the FATT ought > to engage with the WG" > 2. "it's better for things to be open" > > 2 is fine and I think we are all in agreement. > > If 1, could you please clarify whether you are claiming that the arguments > I have made in the thread are *not* reasonable? If so, please clarify > which of my arguments are lacking? Thank you. > Hi, I think #1 and #2 are a little more intertwined than your message suggests. I think perhaps the FATT deliberations could have some closer minutes. I don't need to participate. I would just like to read more detailed rationales if I want to. The question is really about whether the FATT participants value private communications or just not being interrupted by any TLS WG participant. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
