Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

Benjamin Kaduk <> Thu, 10 November 2016 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC12012947E for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:06:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.217
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S3lmhz5GaCyh for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9A112941A for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:06:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B1F423712; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:06:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB640423701; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:06:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=a1; t=1478797565; bh=3CSByD2IhJnHNfIXI24h0RpR1uHBxazEB/E61ZgaHxA=; l=3125; h=To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fWSVXnKMz4QnnR/k6VpvjeC82Znghht1OB0vrXfXPavGcVv3zu/Td1L0Dbq+NZ6OZ oQECj5eMRAC493CIsbEE223tCBqWJSMat42PPczX98/VhYq3S6ONMUk2QGrgbytU9K aJIqTH23dexfO5zQriMKBB9N9zbgAdilJGaksEAM=
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647AA1FCA1; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:06:05 +0000 (GMT)
To:, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>
References: <>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:06:05 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D464E2AE7A35E94FB5582FA3"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:06:08 -0000

On 11/09/2016 11:42 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Nobody so far has provide a single example of *REAL* value.
> For the hiding of ContentType to provide real value, the prerequisites are:
>   (1) this value will be _unconditionally_ provided in TLSv1.3
>   (2) this value can be demonstrated to be a real security issue in TLSv1.2,
>       for existing usage scenarios, where hiding of ContentType is not
>       available
> Anyhing less is no value, just an illusion of value.

Thanks for clarifying your position.  I don't think many of the other
people in the thread are using the same definition of "value", which has
led to a lot of confusion.

However, I'm not convinced that the concrete benefit needs to be
mandatory-to-use in TLS 1.3 to be considered to provide value.  For
example, I personally value having the option to have my car's air
conditioning unit cool the interior temperature, but I wouldn't want it
to be the only way to cool the interior -- the rush of wind through the
windows is a different experience.  That is, having an option can in
itself provide value to some people in some situations.