Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 23 October 2017 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4DD138BE2 for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3V0A269krmNR for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BC3F137C4A for <>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CC9BE4C; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:54:17 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rEGK1FHiLIFG; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:54:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2AE35BDD8; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:54:16 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1508781256; bh=mN0cfyWaz79vfuAlJpc/0xuBfmpGOouDfhhMygFRimc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GpTuQvmppGZ3RC2YlEyDpe9qsb63wsL1AqSUO78vt2mLE5g+EDhUAce/u2DWOcIov vgDkTLTt0SjLWKM+vCZ2DZeI/3CZrYqkHAp9kHLoWRgP7j2F3jAzvS0uBLYvI8EUmU Ea82aOqp16YijlnuHnfgGy8CSLv1FYgBte7e9oVI=
To: "Ackermann, Michael" <>, Ted Lemon <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:54:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="kNVObNIgutn002Q1JcBKQ56q64OKUodPg"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:54:21 -0000

On 23/10/17 18:30, Ackermann, Michael wrote:
> It is a huge proposition requiring change to virtually every platform
> and application.    Not to mention all the management,  monitoring
> and security platforms. It would be very expensive and time
> consuming. And when they ask why this is necessary,  it is because
> the new version of the existing protocol is not backwards compatible,
> which is something we have come to expect.
All of these cost (*) arguments were raised in the draft-green
iteration of this nonsense. None of them are any different when
draft-green is replaced with draft-rehired.

The arguments did not convince before, and will not convince now.

They did not garner rough consensus before and I'm pretty happy
from list discussion that they don't seem to be doing so now.

Why do you insist on wasting the time of the WG? That seems
disruptive to me.

For the chairs:
- Various people have asked you to call a halt here.
- I do so again.
- Pretty-please even :-)

It seems clear this latest version of the same old bad idea
is going nowhere but /dev/null, as is proper. Please do declare
the discussion done.


(*) The arguments here are of course all about moving the
cost to someone else, they are not about reducing costs. The
proponents of moving the cost elsewhere of course never seem
to admit that.