Re: [TLS] NULL cipher to become a MUST NOT in UTA BCP

[Bodo Moeller <[e-mail]>]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>:

Are there any objections to including Victor's suggestion in the draft?


I actually think it would be more appropriate for the UTA BCP to expressly
confine itself to making recommendations for applications that *do* have a
desire for confidentiality, rather than trying to also regulate the wider
area of applications with more esoteric needs.

If NULL encryption cipher suites can't be enabled together with non-NULL
encryption cipher suites, you'd break any server that attempts to allow
NULL encryption for clients that decide they don't need encryption (e.g.,
because they're connecting to localhost) while supporting non-NULL ciphers
for clients that don't offer NULL encryption for whatever reason (e.g.,
because the implementor just doesn't like NULL encryption, which I think is
a position worthy of support).  Same for clients.  I'd rather prefer for
the BCP to avoid this quagmire entirely.

Bodo