Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Stephen Farrell <> Wed, 14 March 2018 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D39126FDC for <>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 W2nY62teLkRM for <>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36D3124D68 for <>; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F242BE4D; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:49:49 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I4twxyMViEzd; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:49:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18FAFBDF9; Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:49:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1521071388; bh=5YKYA6oQnuHFTGMHpRB6LFDLiEVMHWNIldqgD6RtRL8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=nOY9n/dUTEQG5R0UNZ9jyg+83nx4Xag+gLqccC5/LZ1B2x9Sssk0w+BivopbIMB1A 0egK8acIpGt3SqR7E2RsnzPfhP4pRaOB7M7vu4h5Nt9ysaUkFcfmFHpPN1s+xc6zyP 78JAMpJ4HuVhDYmqEeSLb2VuzKkoiiMvD4BSy998=
To: nalini elkins <>
Cc: Artyom Gavrichenkov <>, "<>" <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=5BB5A6EA5765D2C5863CAE275AB2FAF17B172BEA; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:49:47 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3InU9uXwOqFDMXojtCVRpTeTNNRTKI24V"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 23:49:54 -0000

On 14/03/18 23:32, nalini elkins wrote:
> But, it is a very difficult issue.   If I can use a different analogy, if
> the City of Monterey built a new sewer system and told me that to connect
> to it, I had to build a new house, I would scream!

Analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions, merely to illustrate.
That analogy doesn't help illustrate anything for me fwiw.

> TLS is used in many, many places.  The Internet is critical to the
> businesses of the world. 

Yes. Both fine reasons to not mess about with, weaken or
try break the TLS protocol.

BTW - while you and others may constantly over-claim and
say your consortium represents "enterprises," I assume you
do not claim to represent all "business." ;-)

>  You can't just say use something other than
> TLS.   

Yes. I can. Kerberos and IPsec are used within many enterprise
networks. TLS is not the only tool in the toolbox.

If your consortium want a multi-party security protocol that
does not affect other folks' security as you seem to claim,
then that is the obvious route to explore. And that protocol
needs to be non-interoperable with TLS (maybe even non-confusable
in some stronger sense) IMO in order to avoid the risks that
breaking TLS would result in us all taking.

> Or don't use the Internet.  It's not so easy.

I never said that. Why invent something like that?

> I wish we could actually talk to each other quietly and reasonably.  This
> is a very, very difficult problem.

I am just fine with talking openly on the mailing list, as
per IETF processes. I see no benefit in smokey back room
discussions here at all, and only downsides to such.