----- Original Message ----- From: "Nico Williams" <nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:50 PM > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Christopher Wood wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 08:10:45PM +0300, Lars Eggert wrote: > > > > In which WGs have you observed this? > > > > > > TLS, I think. But I may be wrong -- I wasn't a core participant. > > > > If possible, can you please elaborate on this claim? > > I looked through the archives, but it's a lot to look for. I think it > was early on in the 1.3 work, so it's not really fair to say that > discussion on the list was being discouraged -- I can see that later > lots of discussion was had on-list. It could be Dave Garrett's post on Obscure ciphers 23sep15, which got little reaction on the list, or Eric Rescorla Deprecate DH_anon 28aug15 or Eric Rescorla's Key hierarchy while Eric Rescorla's PSS support was approved by Joseph Salowey based on prior list discussions - I did not see any other reaction to the PR. PR508 was 'Barring any objections I'll merge this PR' -noone objected. Eric Rescorla's 'Should we require implementations to send alerts' did provoke a lengthy discussion on the list as did PR#209 or the PR for anti-downgrade mechanism around the same time.. The TLS WG made extensive use of PRs, some generated discussion, others did not; whether the PRs killed discussion I find hard to say - the TLS list is probably the busiest list and that from many and expert contributors (unlike some busy lists which seem more an exercise for script kiddies and such like :-) I note that On Friday, August 28, 2015 11:08:35 am Salz, Rich wrote: > Having discussions through github is a really bad idea. which seems to chime with some of this thread. I don't know what the view is now, four years on. Tom Petch
