Re: [TLS] draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-01

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sat, 15 July 2017 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 EC2B9131B9E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 tqnPXuj_JsYC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x22b.google.com (mail-pg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B680E131B8B for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id t186so56340082pgb.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CGocVXqQzagHqBWaE7wDixdU5pneaTDossJxv7JXE0Y=; b=Tp+y2BrCVzCBmhkQ92hEGQppYqzrSJr6ZqSylNiiTAae3iLptppnYAmuDemybvhUvB pOQsRknEeIxxMDA/H1wpih/7aeepS+jo7NTsNkRINdMrjgzECUruMOO/0YBR5wdUqMVJ 2d/X12yac2JpEF86wsnoL0zP2rNrY5xCKKayWMVy43cJVhJ0DntLlCtXMLGoflcL9xhy zFbCjYM4LkafqhrF/vjvvSB6TFgUOu/WNC1tiiviWqLAZrE0FvG5jKxre/LlcBIe5bUp qtn+yQ/4Bmqhx6V4RjMyj7byZBCiA2ISzYKRRNRCe3/1YR3dd6TCtERzI06quCCX/yk+ lVcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CGocVXqQzagHqBWaE7wDixdU5pneaTDossJxv7JXE0Y=; b=MKZovX7z8pcsGVirjQPDa4+F7NQ+8XbSmEQLOcY+DAX8R3IHF5lzQ9pPtce2cuikSH oEDOfOcN4FbgCLNBcG2/YNBWwIIEmO4x2b9mG1ojz25bzovJkFXtQWtJKlUdg7b9FxFv EvUUTf2DvKcYwVAEUOyahjNUcDQIT7b3j4fXadMfoCfhM2rysc0gzXNv5XKn+DAo8k27 9C7KjRNCICiSvB4y6GY0yn5GUs4KcPC1unlcY7DLyQ8nyXQg5HbeZRmj24XJCndzzI7b kFs7QsOZrCm4j3jirFHAsnD3ozeJlTYxG+B4urbXSB42kZMikuKjQnYC4fBehD827gvs aM8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113ESH/jQ7tdu6xh4PlI48Qf1m/6d5XROfBNHE8LhoTA2sO9THcH OytBr785eodFnWTFy5DGvvLJl1TJZlyQ
X-Received: by 10.84.216.21 with SMTP id m21mr20289443pli.294.1500108571102; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.181.42 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D43C7836-9F72-4D3C-A8FA-E536FCBEEB6A@arbor.net>
References: <CAPCANN-xgf3auqy+pFfL6VO5GpEsCCHYkROAwiB1u=8a4yj+Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRJeauV9NQ2OrGK1ocQtg-M2tbWm2+5HUc4-Wc8KC3vxQ@mail.gmail.com> <71E07F32-230F-447C-B85B-9B3B4146D386@vigilsec.com> <39bad3e9-2e17-30f6-48a7-a035d449dce7@cs.tcd.ie> <CAJU8_nXBFkpncFDy4QFnd6hFpC7oOZn-F1-EuBC2vk3Y6QKq3A@mail.gmail.com> <f0554055-cdd3-a78c-8ab1-e84f9b624fda@cs.tcd.ie> <A0BEC2E3-8CF5-433D-BA77-E8474A2C922A@vigilsec.com> <87k23arzac.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <D37DF005-4C6E-4EA8-9D9D-6016A04DF69E@arbor.net> <CAPt1N1nVhCQBnHd_MCm79e7c1gO6CY6vZG_rZSNePPvmmU_Bow@mail.gmail.com> <44AB7CB8-13C1-44A0-9EC4-B6824272A247@arbor.net> <CAPt1N1=rvtssKXCnsNmr1vy4ejb6YDUxO2kDcgh-ZMh5WGjfWg@mail.gmail.com> <D43C7836-9F72-4D3C-A8FA-E536FCBEEB6A@arbor.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 10:48:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1m6QNmpHY4Zkm3eJSKjBpTs_xaAy6vv6pZi0ySYej_4Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, Matthew Green <matthewdgreen@gmail.com>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c69a2816a390554573ec7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BYFfeSzEEHn_4pH7JwNbe2SjiFE>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-01
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 08:49:43 -0000

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Dobbins, Roland <rdobbins@arbor.net>;
wrote:
>
> I think that your first and third points are actually non-sequiturs: the
> unencrypted stream is available to the entities controlling either
> endpoint, not just the log.
>
> This assertion is both incorrect & incomplete in its scope.
>

Okay.   What did I miss?


> There is no *technical *reason that in-flight capture is required to
> address those two points.
>
> This assertion is factually incorrect.  There are quite frequently reasons
> to have both visibility & the ability to intercede into the traffic in
> question at one or more specific points in the network topology *between*
> endpoints.
>

For example?


> This is network security & troubleshooting 101.
>

Great!   Can you point me to the textbook for that class, because I must
have missed it!


> No - the attempt to denigrate & dismiss real-world technical operational
> requirements is invalid, as is the dismissal of the administrative context
> of actual network operators in the real world.
>

I believe that I merely described the situation.   If you think my
description was not accurate, then it would be great if you could explain
in what way it was not accurate.   I realize that institutional problems of
the sort that I described do exist, are real, and do cause real pain for
ops people--that's not my point.   My point is that what you are describing
sounds like it's a layer 9 problem.   If it's not, I'm genuinely not seeing
it.   Rather than being offended at what you say is my mischaracterization
of the situation, could you just point out where the mischaracterization
lies?