Hi Rob,Thank you for the clarification. Please feel free to clarify if I misunderstood something.
On 26.04.26 03:34, Rob Sayre wrote:
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.I think #1 and #2 are a little more intertwined than your message suggests.
Sure, I agree. However, I'm still looking to better understand your /interpretation/ of #1 to which you said you agree? So, would you mind clarifying more explicitly: Are there specific parts of my arguments in this thread that you see differently or think could be improved? If so, it would be helpful to know which one, so that I can work on that in the next version of the draft.
I think perhaps the FATT deliberations could have some closer minutes.
I may be misunderstanding what 'deliberations' mean here. Quick context: please note that formal models are abstract and we have to make reasonable choices to what to put in the model and what not. With that context in mind:
For final FATT review: IMHO, 8773bis report [0] is quite extensive as minutes.
For initial FATT review: IMHO, key-update email [1] and presentation [2] is more than sufficient as minutes.
It would help to understand what you feel is missing from those. If we agree to form the new list, I can take the action item to update this list on a reasonable frequency (say once every 2 months) on the minutes of the discussions happening on the new list, if that is what you would like to see.
The problem from my point of view really is that authors can approach the FATT (as happened in case of [1]) while rest of the WG cannot. FWIW, I don't find that justified. It would be beneficial if the discussion between authors and FATT happens transparently.
I don't need to participate. I would just like to read more detailed rationales if I want to.Sure, work on that has already happened. See [3] which is a one-stop shop for hopefully everything you would like to see about any draft since FATT started. Happy to fill in gaps if there’s something missing.
The question is really about whether the FATT participants value private communications or just not being interrupted by any TLS WG participant.
I guess that's an action item for chairs now. Best regards, -Usama[0] https://github.com/tlswg/rfc8773bis/blob/main/fatt-review/IETF%20FATT%20Report%20-%208773bis.pdf
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/pYmjTTlYd11FnjdYoOL6RdGk0sk/[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/125/materials/slides-125-tls-sessa-fatt-report-on-eku-00
[3] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt/blob/main/fatt-point-person.md
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
