Re: Report on preliminary decision on TLS 1.3 and client auth

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 19 October 2015 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7378A1B2DBB for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvG1dHVp1AT2 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D68BF1B2DB9 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZoIdl-0004tk-VY for; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:10:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:10:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZoIdg-0004sx-WD for; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:10:45 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1ZoIdf-0000Ii-IC for; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:10:44 +0000
Received: by yknn9 with SMTP id n9so106070254ykn.0 for <>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=+flr6tQIgOQfwQ6M65bf001ZMRuERxpURrCSzvVvDVs=; b=OjSphrGbQ7ftYjXscVtuBbiLZjtkCqcBPlQsoW54Y06ILNEPntHuUQXP+9cUEIb/ap t+sb5uNO22ZlDzBkJMrEhSZhDLc/HNluqIVgiajKFXYrKYemzl+gbq8gkTfkBiJOKkSZ H90Kfoee2Fn/NSPmg23A3usqdYthf2yC8L6ufnHLqmX0qbsz94bnuptVahNUvrPq32FF EZtDnwHq15xWhbTCzwk1XkSKkSY1aYTC9L4de2OwSMSotMd6JPCVFMX3Dh+KsOUVdqZW wSr4pcu0ijH/UCw2nMKVbDv8B4XxtNCg6gZqGLVXug72my6+oBLtFwYjCH7+ooVi2zEz yodQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id p185mr24257260ywf.207.1445292617631; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:10:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.842, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1ZoIdf-0000Ii-IC 371b2a13c256546c231ae7435feab249
Subject: Re: Report on preliminary decision on TLS 1.3 and client auth
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/30384
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 23 September 2015 at 10:16, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> Here is a summary of the applicable pieces, plus what I options it provides
> HTTP/2...

With the help of Mike Bishop [7], I've just submitted a draft that
describes option 2 in more detail, including something for TLS 1.2.

I think that this is the best of all the bad options available to us.
In an ideal world, I think that I would prefer to kill this feature,
but we tried that once already and it wasn't working so well.  So we
this is plan B.

The TLS 1.2 option requires a new TLS extension.  If we think that
this is a good idea, we'll have to coordinate with the TLS working


[7] Mike is on vacation, and I did make a few changes without his
approval, so I'll have to ask forgiveness if I made a mistake...  In
other words, all the blame is mine, and the credit Mike's.