Re: [OPSEC] [TLS] Call For Adoption: draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 1:15 AM Eric Wang (ejwang) <ejwang=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.  I’d like to clarify, given the reality today
> that CDN/load balancers and enterprises deploy TLS proxy, this draft is
> merely to lay out a baseline guidance to the implementation and
> operation[1].  It is not meant to analyze "use and abuse" or "pros and
> cons", for which there were many discussions and publications in the past
> and the draft references some of them.
>

CDNs are usually aware of application level semantics and have some
interesting security problems when not.

There's no generic safe way to terminate TLS, and that's a real problem for
this draft: it needs to be specific to certain use cases.

> Given the progression of TLS and its wide adoption, the use of TLS proxy
> is also becoming a practice and is growing in enterprise/CDN.  We felt it’s
> a good thing for the community to define a set of best practices for
> practitioners to reference when implementing and operating TLS proxy.
> Without one, TLS deployments would be negatively impacted.  Also, given
> some of the implementation inconsistencies noted during the TLS 1.3
> evolution, we felt a bcp guide could help the community moving forward.
> That’s the purpose of this draft.
>

We've seen middlebox writers ignore black letter extensibility requirements
in the existing RFCs and adopt broken patterns before. Why will another
draft help?

> Best,
> -Eric
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp-00#section-1
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2020, at 7:07 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> I oppose adoption. While there could be some minor benefit
> in documenting the uses and abuses seen when mitm'ing tls,
> I doubt that the effort to ensure a balanced document is at
> all worthwhile. The current draft is too far from what it'd
> need to be to be adopted.
>
> Send to ISE.
>
> S.
>
> On 23/07/2020 02:30, Jen Linkova wrote:
>
> One thing to add here: the chairs would like to hear active and
> explicit support of the adoption. So please speak up if you believe
> the draft is useful and the WG shall work on getting it published.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:35 AM Ron Bonica
> <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> This email begins a Call For Adoption on draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp.
>
>
>
> Please send comments to opsec@ietf.org by August 3, 2020.
>
>
>
>                                                                Ron
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSEC mailing list
> OPSEC@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
>
>
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>_______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>