Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lamp12 with SMTP id p12so117573349lam.0 for ; 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: From: Joseph Salowey To: "tls@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1cbab7ad13051fd2d34a Archived-At: 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:00:43 -0000 --089e013d1cbab7ad13051fd2d34a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 --089e013d1cbab7ad13051fd2d34a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There has been some discuss= ion to remove anonymous DH as described in=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/m= sg17481.html.=C2=A0 I think ekr's me= ssage sums up the pros and cons well.=C2=A0 I don't think we have conse= nsus on this issue yet.=C2=A0 Please respond on this message by Monday, Sep= tember 21, if you have an opinion. =C2=A0

Thanks,

J&S
--089e013d1cbab7ad13051fd2d34a--