On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:05 PM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxx> wrote:
Mostly I view this thread as the same set of people that failed to get consensus in the WG trying to reopen
Aha! I am glad we agree on the lack of consensus in the WG! I feel that we are making progress here! All hope is not lost! ;)
issues that was clearly not consensus for
Agreed again!
Mostly the agreement was we would the way EKT and double was done breaking all the existing implementation if Sergio and Emil agreed they would support that approach. Before the meeting, Emil decided he did not support it which made the many of us regret making the breaking changes.
Now this bit here is somewhat vexing. Of course I am sure it is entirely unintentional so let me just correct this: "Before the meeting, Emil decided he did not support it" is quite an, obviously accidental but still, misrepresentation of reality!
You had discussions with people. I was not an active part of them. You put my name on a slide of "supporters" and you were about to present to that to the WG. I saw that and asked you to remove my name. Please do not imply sudden whimsical changes of positions.
Next time my support is important to you, please simply reach out and I'd be happy to hear you out.
We were hoping to find a way to move forward without the constant problem of people saying the did not like the solution in the WG while not being able to present an alternative that addressed the security requirements and issues that had been raised (such as the splicing attack).
Ah! That "splicing attack"! You often refer to it and have yet to explain it ... I am confident that you only mean well of course, and promise that, as soon as you provide details, we will come back with explanations and security considerations on how to protect against the specific vectors that concern you.
My very best regards!
Emil
