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

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 24 October 2017 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6298113F834 for <>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 PI-quFh3UAP5 for <>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9681F13A039 for <>; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB7ABE2E; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:58:16 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aVYxIguYd9l; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:58:15 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04D5EBE24; Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:58:15 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1508875095; bh=Aq66nhLgkQjETfWm6nNIutiZFj4hRIVvbPABLH3H9kQ=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=1iGv/Jl7QgBPXky45HSyBOL/AoShk5WYDzejYHfNNmFn8l0OqKUWS1GymtrZyDEWm rQih4nsY7SvIHGNAw/BMHUTpAMsnaUtxnW6/c6M/bw7NdPA6lBmeWjA54OVY3pzWGl 7dVHYFwF60wm00liTNXjewkQeGJRoEdtHwUEjSjQ=
To: Ted Lemon <>, Joseph Salowey <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:58:14 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="i0rB4EuQxAQWlbB3C52elOACioX0DEXg7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:58:19 -0000

On 24/10/17 20:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
> But it's delaying other work, because people who could be doing
> useful work in the IETF are engaging on this topic instead.
I'm not sure of the extent to which my work in the IETF is
useful or not, but it is certainly the case that these
repeated proposals have consumed the cycles I have for that
work. As both Ted and Ben have said this I know I'm not
alone in that, and the volume of mail on the topic alone
shows that others are spending valuable time rebutting the
ongoing break-TLS show.

Whether or not any of us would have contributed to TLS1.3 or
DTLS1.3 being done sooner or better instead is another question,
but the real linkage to TLS1.3 here is that if any of these
bad ideas did achieve more that forcing us to oppose them, and
the WG went mad and adopted any of it, then that would surely
and fully muck up TLS1.3 and DTLS1.3, both in terms of timing
and I believe in terms of utility. (Who'd want a new TLS version
that's designed as broken?)