Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on MTI Algorithms

Nico Williams <> Thu, 02 April 2015 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2211A1A63 for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.233
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id okxEwrTKnajm for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD8B1A1A5A for <>; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5534C1B4078; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to;; bh=LoyC5ZNpjwOU/r hNClOdHSLKOko=; b=e3licPH6lqh0TXqYmZ6TXeFsWtc5iouSbUe6zbBmAfSZCt 9EEKSaMMkQhI8J/bVoD3kcgQPIRtepmm8d4UM8wavRgNeQL+0KLAeV799BmKRNhM dulAPuNTpN0fvw07hxnI+Kk7RkReewSobmvTSMjK6wjLfNS9FVVuLWvjokDGU=
Received: from localhost ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E4F561B406B; Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:34:14 -0500
From: Nico Williams <>
To: Dave Garrett <>
Message-ID: <20150402203412.GK10960@localhost>
References: <> <> <20150402194417.GJ10960@localhost> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on MTI Algorithms
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:34:21 -0000

On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:12:35PM -0400, Dave Garrett wrote:
> Fortunately for you, the IETF police are only armed with water
> balloons made out of an over-engineered rubber that doesn't break on
> impact, and whilst the IETF jail was agreed to be on an island in the

[Not to be a total nitpicker or anything, but a water balloon that
 doesn't break probably hurts a lot more than one that does!]

> middle of nowhere that nobody can really get to, it has never been
> constructed because they've been arguing over the color to paint the
> roof for the past 30 years. :p

Also: it's just a bikeshed.  Amnesty International would have one out in
a heartbeat.

> Serious answer: Just write a separate IoT TLS spec that just contains
> modifications for whatever isn't viable because you're creating a
> system not designed to necessarily interoperate with the general
> Internet. General TLS implementations could implement it as well, or
> not, depending on needs.

Sure, that'd be nice (because different manufacturers of IoT devices
will want to know what to implement as a common denominator).