Re: [98attendees] Tussle issue in plenary

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:37:59PM +0000,
 Vinicius Fortuna [vee-NEE-see.oos] <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 138 lines which said:

> If two parties want and explicit opt to add a third party to their
> communication, the network should allow them to do it.

I don't see how the network could *prevent* it, so this argument seems
a strawman. If you want to send a copy of your emails to the NSA, or a
copy of the HTTPS traffic in clear to a middlebox, open a TCP
connection to this 3rd-party and send()

> Whether previous proposals were bad, that's not a reason to give
> up. There are so many brilliant people at IETF that I'm sure a good
> solution can be achieved.

I don't want to destroy optimism, or to pretend that the IETF
participants are not extra-bright, but I seriously doubt our
collective abilities to *weaken* a complicated and brittle protocol
like TLS without breaking it in one way or the other. Look at all the
security problems with TLS for a proof.

> that cannot happen if the attitude is to dismiss attempts without
> even talking.

Well, it's like IPv10. We cannot reopen every day questions that have
been closed and well closed by previous attempts.