Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote: > > > > I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about > > one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746). > > I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you > describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is > relevant when considering this draft, for two reasons: Uh-oh! > > - First, that was the IETF in security-incident-handling > mode, and that's just different from normal process for > us, whether fast-tracked or not. If I hadn't stumbled upon the TLS renegotiation issue while discussing the proposal for TLS channel bindings, then the "solution" would have been developed and shipped under NDA and entirely with involvement of the IETF TLS WG (just some selected TLS WG members), and likely there would have been a request for rubber stamping the (half-baked) solution *AFTER* deploymend of the fixes by major vendors. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03928.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg03942.html Myself, I'm worried by the idea of shortcutting review and marginalization of comments that do not meet the discuss criteria. > > - Second, there was significant controversy within the > WG before the last calls, (with many hundreds of mails;-) > so a set of WG chairs that chose to try a fast-track > experiment in such circumstances would be crazy basically. > (Remember, we're only talking about an experiment here.) Admittedly, I deserve part of the blame for the heated discussion. But if occasional heated discussions turn out to be a serious problem for creating or improving technical solutions, then we may need more procedural safeguards (such as independent leadership), not less. The true essence of most of the 2009 TLS WG discussion was actually fairly small and simple: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05365.html -Martin