Return-Path: X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F397A1A6EDA for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham 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 r0wkTrVtFtAq for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D831A6ED9 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so3195431wic.0 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=O2MNkCy6cDQCiuvkNUnJKbw0qEiu/i3Hvb0vCmV6VcU=; b=KyZza9/ANzVOJFODOI29hOJP8HIIWDpYcYjiMH72fnS3uqqkYcYHjjSdMAaphvDvTo Ndrqhzo12pZEqSHogzne2Hn/uD/uh5WSN/p8jAEQXviZZ8jEG16m0P23YfS9u7ifANlp /fAHcXeLlI67b8f9rRCn9duFby0DEGun5lSB0mz0giRxCyXE7lavyP2o/Hxb+boddED9 00CL51NoXilyqQ5QboYS0ec9IUbJjdlvGxcj1HaTe1JhsKP8FcGdqrUBRXWwV6M0dt3g u6A3zd0GvsSZ6ku7l/oOrn0+LVGfYMIVwgi9qFl6Am1LKeZIwHgkOgybeWH2mAntIrnD ZQnw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkofrprHpw7QiuHPAFtXJJbfralDqh8PdR00Z0e82ExKB0S4juFFx7bMtXeK/jYA2vBZUVP X-Received: by 10.180.88.4 with SMTP id bc4mr800392wib.68.1442439615178; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.27.79.200 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:39:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150916212420.GQ13294@localhost> References: <20150916210113.GP13294@localhost> <20150916212420.GQ13294@localhost> From: Eric Rescorla Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:39:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Nico Williams Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04428ee4df813f051fe42417 Archived-At: Cc: "tls@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:40:18 -0000 --f46d04428ee4df813f051fe42417 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:12:07PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > In addition, they are already part of TLS, so the question would be if > we > > > have > > > consensus to remove them.... > > > > > > > I see a bunch of +1s and zero -1s. Just saying... > > I think Eric meant raw public keys. > Yes. I'm in favor of removing Anon, which is why I proposed it a few weeks ago. -Ekr --f46d04428ee4df813f051fe42417 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.= com> wrote:
On Wed, S= ep 16, 2015 at 02:12:07PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> > In addition, they are already part of TLS, so the question would = be if we
> > have
> > consensus to remove them....
> >
>
> I see a bunch of +1s and zero -1s. Just saying...

I think Eric meant raw public keys.

Yes. I'm in fav= or of removing Anon, which is why I proposed it a few weeks ago.

-Ekr


--f46d04428ee4df813f051fe42417--