On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:45:39AM +0000, tom petch wrote: > > 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. Yeah, that sort of thing. Each case by itself might not terribly concerning, and some may point out a benefit: we get version history. But it raises some concerns: - does the WG not do enough consensus calls? - can that even scale for an effort like TLS 1.3? (I'm guessing "no", and "not sure". Process scalability for fast-moving standards development efforts is a real concern.) - does this end up supplanting proper review during a WG LC? (Well, it's up to the reviewers to do a proper review.) > 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.. Maybe GH + list works. > 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 think of the TLS WG list as a DoS on its participants but maybe it's nothing like this list! > 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. Provided we have an agent subscribed to e-mail notifications from GH forwarding to the WG list, it can work, though I don't know what happens to replies from non-GH users -- does GH show them in its UI? GH's e-mail support is rather basic, and not really good enough for an e-mail-based org like IETF. Nico --
