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

Ted Lemon <> Sat, 15 July 2017 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2B9131B9E for <>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqnPXuj_JsYC for <>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B680E131B8B for <>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t186so56340082pgb.1 for <>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id m21mr20289443pli.294.1500108571102; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 01:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 10:48:50 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: "Dobbins, Roland" <>
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>, Matthew Green <>, IETF TLS <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045c69a2816a390554573ec7"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-01
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 08:49:43 -0000

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Dobbins, Roland <>
> 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