On Sun, Apr 26, 2026 at 5:23 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > Well, I don't think the FATT needs to allow interjections by TLS WG members. From: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.html#section-4.1.2 I disagree with one of the design goals: "Keep intra-FATT communication private as it is." It is not something I would raise an objection over, and it is definitely allowed by RFC 2418. But if the intra-FATT communication were public, but read-only, I think that would solve a lot of the communication issues. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
