Re: [TLS] access_administratively_disabled v2

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 04 January 2018 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0710F126D85 for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCat9tSpVsJn for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3545F126FB3 for <>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r63so2021003oia.6 for <>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:29:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BLB6WWTEMEub1V3nDBqdSDPlsl9jzTCOnVaay1gOvI8=; b=ewsfmYg1KZSHbiYnaTu8Pl62O4Z9CyYdFUtwKXNKI+GGNQSuURLnAD7G/8BJCv+juJ oo+35lfaA0ukt+MU7e3eczCoI2nh/qLJe4R/OI5fiCGTbnarN4Zp6jasdIn5zOc+n6J3 QqF/DYVjuXoRShFd3POL0Gvm7fMD3Jz3NJPa6AS5uNrYn3hyaVUdE86MGmzdAw30fWFk yZIR/BAthU6KRJhhka+cnYwleqq4vVx/2nzUyg4XcbU63eA1tY1/ZZ4tg9MGHOtJGlNh 32g1SmwYfMGiX5vrlHu9F5wXwsh8Xwau0nfK55j0g5utWmgPCmd1oH9+XbajVMjkK60w lTkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BLB6WWTEMEub1V3nDBqdSDPlsl9jzTCOnVaay1gOvI8=; b=lS8j2OoKUOz27hm9eYGjuznMhOJWofGOst1AMXTKDVMtqVr2DcrLvwzyFpJDrk/sli NVfdbarlakGne+bLvKjogllOvRVYYwCPP5GXG8zEJ+h3BtVFs8W7gMgZqnbk39katxlT kwbnQRnZptpDqoLhVkVGWp+jWh45vH/uAs6xNsZqbpeRXGPyaz88CCB+T5PV4HK+0ZCJ gIkkopnGJv/QlEDNdDLdTbJKIDNqjYsNHrDMV7B60MTZ6STsOB86YqlX6phQGAGCSAn3 pLUT28kSUscHm6OZ6Hd3/41fon9K9d85vsbrTQTpuivoA8+cqgC9pq2Ge8f216+e4RgW Bi7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLCJayf37uC6hBuWR1NcbtFBmf/0ti6dxT7uAqK9cgBeFL4lJ61 un5RDyECMl7OpPmTyxPcks5T3lQ3LTXAWuWRxxc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov9TyQFf3kef01OX5xtbsYtU5KuO4R4phVhOD6uc9IQCRODB+qbV5ppnUFZYmJNitXslqMW5nXl0bjqVx1Oc6I=
X-Received: by with SMTP id f21mr624744oih.50.1515104952448; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 14:29:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:29:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:29:11 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mateusz_Jo=C5=84czyk?= <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, Eric Rescorla <>, "<>" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] access_administratively_disabled v2
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: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:29:21 -0000

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:39 AM, Mateusz Jończyk <> wrote:
> W dniu 04.01.2018 o 16:52, Stephen Farrell pisze:
>> I'm fairly sure I'm against attempting to handle captive portal issues at
>> the TLS layer. Any changes to TLS needed for captive portals ought really
>> garner consensus within the capport wg and then be discussed here. (It
>> looks from the archive of that wg that this topic hasn't even been raised
>> there despite a few people suggesting that, which is IMO another reason to
>> reject this proposal now.)
> Captive portals != filtering, these are AFAIK different problems and need
> mostly different solutions. I just integrated them under the same umbrella
> because they initially both used to seem to benefit from adding alert messages
> to TLS (but that idea is dead now).
> I am not certain whether adding captive_portal AlertDescription to TLS would
> be of benefit. It seems to me that possibly yes, but haven't reviewed this.

Please take that discussion to the capport WG (

However, it seems like you want to address filtering/censorship more
than you want to address the captive portal case.  I can say that the
capport WG isn't interested in anything that might improve filtering
or censorship and are explicitly designing mechanisms that avoid doing
so.  I won't say that you can't raise the issue, but you should be
aware that this topic has been discussed quite a bit already and
unless you have new information, I doubt you will change the