IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

Paul Turner <PAUL.TURNER@venafi.com> Thu, 19 October 2017 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <PAUL.TURNER@venafi.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A78C1342EE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.292
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbMogaE7tUg0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.venafi.com (unknown [34.193.116.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 415F5134211 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SLC-EXG02.res.venafi.com (10.1.110.18) by AWS-EXG01.res.venafi.com (10.50.110.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1034.26; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:20:00 -0600
Received: from SLC-EXG01.res.venafi.com (10.1.110.17) by SLC-EXG02.res.venafi.com (10.1.110.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.1.1034.26; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:19:59 -0600
Received: from SLC-EXG01.res.venafi.com ([fe80::e9c4:73d1:e66e:cff6]) by SLC-EXG01.res.venafi.com ([fe80::e9c4:73d1:e66e:cff6%12]) with mapi id 15.01.1034.026; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:19:59 -0600
From: Paul Turner <PAUL.TURNER@venafi.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00
Thread-Index: AQDO0nP6IcKCRq1bnEFoblkG8dV0CgHq1icUpOTCoYCAAG+9gIAAANmAgAABFgD//5uPgIAAZaGA//+buECAAGpJAIAABTXQgAACtID//5vkEA==
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:19:58 +0000
Message-ID: <c1c0d010293c449481f8751c3b85d6ae@venafi.com>
References: <7E6C8F1F-D341-456B-9A48-79FA7FEC0BC1@gmail.com> <a599d6ad-54db-e525-17d6-6ea882880021@akamai.com> <71e75d23f4544735a9731c4ec3dc7048@venafi.com> <3D2E3E26-B2B9-4B04-9704-0BBEE2E2A8F7@akamai.com> <000501d348e5$1f273450$5d759cf0$@equio.com> <70837127-37AB-4132-9535-4A0EB072BA41@akamai.com> <e8417cc424fe4bf3b240416dfffd807a@venafi.com> <B11A4F30-2F87-4310-A2F0-397582E78E1D@akamai.com> <fd12a8a8c29e4c7f9e9192e1a1d972d6@venafi.com> <D2CAAA44-339E-4B41-BCE0-865C76B50E2F@akamai.com> <d76828f02fc34287a961eba21901247b@venafi.com> <56687FEC-508F-4457-83CC-7C379387240D@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <56687FEC-508F-4457-83CC-7C379387240D@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [75.115.210.166]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/-UnoHZunIRf8i1XdCEw5hIIj21A>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:20:08 -0000


> 
> They can already block traffic based on IP address.  That’s single-point
> blocking.  Being able to block based on the client’s willingness to let their
> traffic be interception is a whole additional class and it also indicates that the
> client is willing to let their traffic be intercepted.  The two things are very very
> very different.
> 

Can you explain the comparison that I brought up regarding trusting the CA? That is related to " the client’s willingness to let their traffic be intercepted".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email