Hi Rob,Thank you for explaining your perspective explicitly. That was indeed very helpful. In short, I completely agree with you but I also want to ensure some meaningful progress. So I am moving step by step. We could make it completely open at some point in the future. I will add your proposal as an alternative for consideration by FATT and WG in the next version of the draft. You are welcome to propose a PR here [0]. Thank you. Some thoughts inline:
On 27.04.26 03:34, Rob Sayre wrote:
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-4.1.2I disagree with one of the design goals: "Keep intra-FATT communication private as it is."
I absolutely share your opinion. In fact, I would love to have that public too. As a related historical note, I indeed opposed the idea of private FATT communication a couple of years ago when the process was being made.
So the only purpose of having this design goal here is to move step by step and get something done, rather than proposing an abrupt process change which might not be acceptable.
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.
Again, I fully agree with you and would very much love to see your proposal implemented but as I understood back then, the primary concern was to preserve anonymity of FATT, even though the set is itself very small.
My idea of /hybrid/ design team is just a middle ground that hopefully works for everyone.
Best regards, -Usama [0] https://github.com/muhammad-usama-sardar/tls-fatt-extension
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
