Subject: [Uta] confirming consensus-call on draft-popov-tls-prohibiting-rc4

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2014 16:08:12 +0100

Folks,

During the meeting in London there was strong consensus in the room to
move the description of how attacks against RC4 work for certain
applications of TLS (eg HTTPS) from draft-popov-tls-prohibiting-rc4 to
draft-sheffer-uta-tls-attacks.

        Leif & Orit

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 03:16:47 -0400

> draft-sheffer-uta-tls-attacks.
Isn't it necessary to verify that the list concurs before declaring WG 
consensus?

Keith

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:14:34 +0000

> Isn't it necessary to verify that the list concurs before declaring WG 

I took the combination of the subject ("confirming consensus-call") and 
the body ("there was strong consensus in the room") to be a statement of 
what happened in the room and an implicit call for objections. It 
probably would have been clearer to ask for objections to the plan 
explicitly.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:13:40 +0100

On 2014-03-09 13:14, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> Isn't it necessary to verify that the list concurs before declaring
>> WG consensus?
>
> I took the combination of the subject ("confirming consensus-call")
> and the body ("there was strong consensus in the room") to be a
> statement of what happened in the room and an implicit call for
> objections. It probably would have been clearer to ask for objections
> to the plan explicitly.

Yes I thought the use of "confirming consensus-call" was enough of a hint.

To clarify: If you object please do not stay silent!