IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Wed, 16 September 2015 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE071B3009 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 vwHpKCPvDC5x for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) (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 252BF1B3008 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lamp12 with SMTP id p12so117573349lam.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=4Xl6un8S3hkGRQ7aILQcqa33+C64HuJEyALLuVoZbhA=; b=I3wRqsPHm4FP7hDX6Nu+uZzWar79Uzx3EW2dza5q/+jiJCjF5+Ri+Vt9s1YqnHnRf1 MctNw8SmveuHNaoXtgoqTr2jboEohSVjjxMaek+jF2AfeDrJk0XImWdUQe6Mwz4sjTKT Cxg6rcwpSscwWw8iVV7dKLTfa37Z8rpSCCDGBrZcwc9W8eDYljkg6JL46XDpccA4JKVP IP/vO4aoPRfJqqgA2tzbL887WHqDyisPJxGcZikA+QH4f7CL0tooKX+Glt4du7aW2Rpd 5LwsdURdE8adbKuOCCaRWVLWsnwcePKfRMNVuYzONjQvZlvJSMsdSEFYnoa8UXEorSLZ RE/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkMeCaTkNI8ZtioEZMQ8QvvcheEBaxyYZZTK4SP7SPsnjQrU/lkpaEnUby61GSH58ldOvLH
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.3.233 with SMTP id f9mr21764042laf.14.1442365239161; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.2.1 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBT9C=pWebXShqxhbOsnqK+OZe=-n-SvZ_pH-dAtRaWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d1cbab7ad13051fd2d34a"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CFGxItHw87QwAawbflW99CjdFO4>
Subject: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 16 Sep 2015 01:00:43 -0000

There has been some discussion to remove anonymous DH as described in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg17481.html.  I think
ekr's message sums up the pros and cons well.  I don't think we have
consensus on this issue yet.  Please respond on this message by Monday,
September 21, if you have an opinion.

Thanks,

J&S

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status