IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] call for consensus: changes to IANA registry rules for cipher suites

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 2346012D8EB for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham 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 T-gpt2Btw7-W for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter4.welho.com (welho-filter4.welho.com [83.102.41.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9D512D8DC for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E78E489A; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:09 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GzkyUs5J2hvm; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:08 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-143-35.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.143.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBEF3287; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:08 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:20:08 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <20160330192008.GB771@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <20DDE657-E1A9-4705-936D-40673294C4EB@sn3rd.com> <56FBF1B5.8030906@akamai.com> <8737r8ymrd.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8737r8ymrd.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8gtGHkIY0dDF09rlw3WkCEzomog>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] call for consensus: changes to IANA registry rules for cipher suites
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:20:15 -0000

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:05:26PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2016-03-30 11:33:09 -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > I am not sure that we want to be in the business of explicitly marking
> > things as insecure other than our own RFCs, though -- there could be an
> > implication of more review than is actually the case, which is what this
> > proposal is trying to get rid of.
> 
> I think i agree with Ben here: if we have a tri-state:
> approved/not-approved/known-bad, then the people will infer that the
> not-approved ciphersuites are better than the known-bad ones, which
> isn't necessarily the case.
> 
> I think i'd rather see it stay at "approved/not-approved"

Then how should ciphersuites with explicit diediedie RFCs (currently
RC4) be presented?


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email