Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process

"Dan Harkins" <> Sun, 30 March 2014 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF09A1A0895 for <>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.867
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9B-Iayf25Q3k for <>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EFE1A065C for <>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5764A888012; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <r422Ps-1075i-3F3E24809EA445E4888C1202C5515245@Williams-MacBook-Pro.lo cal>
References: <r422Ps-1075i-3F3E24809EA445E4888C1202C5515245@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 09:23:15 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <>
To: Bill Frantz <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process
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: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:23:20 -0000

On Sat, March 29, 2014 8:05 pm, Bill Frantz wrote:
> On 3/29/14 at 6:57 PM, (Dan Harkins) wrote:
>>See /etc/services. Basically, everything that uses the transport layer
>>should be able to use transport layer security if it wants to.
> Transport layer doesn't have key agreement, end point
> authentication, reconnect etc. etc. etc.

  That's what Transport Layer _Security_ (i.e. TLS) is for.

>                                                              We need use
cases to
> define what is needed in these areas.

  I disagree.

> Watson is correctly concerned that we get the transport
> encryption to work correctly. Transport layer encryption might
> include bi-directional data transport, end point synchronization
> etc., but if there are no use cases, it is hard to justify
> spending a lot of effort to support them.

  Well bully for Watson. But everyone in the WG is concerned
about getting encryption to work correctly. We're also all
concerned about getting authentication to work correctly.
And about getting authenticated encryption to work correctly.

  I fail to see how documenting use cases will help us get
encryption to work correctly, unless you think there are some
use cases for which correctly working encryption is not a
requirement. If that's the case then then have no impact on
TLS 1.3.

> We need use cases if only to be sure we are supporting what
> needs to be supported.

  Documenting use cases is an unnecessary distraction from
doing actual work. You'll note that our charter does not say
"enumerate applications that want to use TLS".


> Cheers - Bill
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Frantz        | Since the IBM Selectric, keyboards have gotten
> 408-356-8506       | steadily worse. Now we have touchscreen keyboards.
> | Can we make something even worse?