Re: [TLS] NIST on addressing visibility challenges with TLS 1.3

Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> Thu, 30 September 2021 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <caw@heapingbits.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27463A0D6A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=heapingbits.net header.b=YW9SeFKH; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=vLgUmYpr
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 Gt9PudCtsYBn for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1B813A0D63 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF753201487 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:32:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heapingbits.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm2; bh=da6uz 66AdAIp2TL8OgDBE6g1rC7a8xZMNTd/o8sDd8I=; b=YW9SeFKHqOjFdjRBNlGtS /Oj083i+64k/nxl8Jwytqne28z+EhBkV0sFKuPbdPLRXWlffrgd+VsjbXwDZTqUf F76zRs++72ARgXg1pzBYI8KofxzdKnddSWB6gi7Q+lSqg1v5jTCNcbTfHyftTTY+ sGFzMDJy9PTB1tvcHW90eOuqE+6pqtfVXRO/QB5ShkGXToCfAyk3gTrVZ/QnlnU0 dZZ3RBjTvaaeNtlVEdkT7XKQyh9ukmZ1hEDZMKbw55QmAQiCAoMBu+okEdONgkgM b4v3iqVjmgJRvk5FfVMK9Ck/UWdYd0TCGffOdWtK3JCyH/6yE82gkilO1O1Zr4d2 A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=da6uz66AdAIp2TL8OgDBE6g1rC7a8xZMNTd/o8sDd 8I=; b=vLgUmYprEAVNtz+30bj9DWQU39HgojuXXMiPVYrP4efcJL/zak9X+wdXj h8yk1Z/EA2Hn8okpl/9bEYAon3xuIoZjMwqBhHUaoNFGjI4afyEpyb23L0lGIbJp XuI8UZ+cFXbRoeJIkXJ6f9OFxtSvdwk96B2Mj0oN8d0IxhV6OpxWji6fUoVFZhsW KycbvZDcbKwhwuAldT5QdXui1Bt9yRq27b5CDdAshsCiBiYSoFbkH2jjynPhGOCH ABFE3646UgFY4E9zkFRCpoM8MYqhq5iPNIWP0gIliw9nSW2l1yllPhr54FQdDTj/ ncRQ21IAlGbljxXHIN6/Ad0YnIfmw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ithVYe47yjxrLAS84uyn5gjIkmlz2kFiAgloe7B1Qc7OgzT8dMryyQ> <xme:ithVYX50UX9_OKHTWtq66DlgS84e5Jk9_HljdAdYSCKq_s9WaP3FzjrO8QGsN0-a6 Y69mWszv_fRvGH3T_g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrudekgedgkeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdevhhhrihhsthhophhhvghrucghohhougdfuceotggr fieshhgvrghpihhnghgsihhtshdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheetleekie dukeefgfevleeuudelffffteelfefggfejvdfftdfhtddvffdttdfgnecuffhomhgrihhn pegvuhhrohhprgdrvghupdhivghtfhdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegtrgifsehhvggrphhinhhgsghithhsrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ithVYdcl4AMFAPvjjR4_ZBSyO1gURQuegBILmATHgjWWQgayoRayIA> <xmx:ithVYbKyhqH0Ev3O5n8wiYH6EY1QYO0jWIe_RaqDfUAbrxc3bYEvGA> <xmx:ithVYSLGQR90kYJ0VYGg9vEstEriq5Xafi-sQ-Ps99WAqujy_Xe8vA> <xmx:ithVYXX2AHlKD5z8gVZLonv0DbUREYax4LQkfzU7APFsWEKEZicHCQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4A3973C0821; Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1322-g921842b88a-fm-20210929.001-g921842b8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <2bc24cf8-228c-46c8-94b4-8bf7ea5195ff@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <904eecc0-9624-7a57-b1f1-9ec4457bd74d@gmail.com>
References: <5987C38E-8FEA-441D-8975-ABB9906276BA@akamai.com> <78802a08-da04-5197-21be-26eac6ad29f6@cs.tcd.ie> <4b2cfadd-3fdf-cb3f-c1df-3a8ef80f63bf@gmail.com> <10162829a33201ef98edda841ec6e66e67801c09.camel@ruff.mobi> <904eecc0-9624-7a57-b1f1-9ec4457bd74d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 08:32:05 -0700
From: "Christopher Wood" <caw@heapingbits.net>
To: "TLS@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/MdM8IApdQEHx0jvYnFAhWBWHaVo>
Subject: Re: [TLS] NIST on addressing visibility challenges with TLS 1.3
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:32:36 -0000

Hi folks,

This line of discussion is not appropriate for this mailing list. Please take it elsewhere.

Best,
Chris, for the chairs

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021, at 6:54 AM, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Ruslan,
>
> Speaking as as a lawyer has participated in many EU proceedings over 
> several decades, your assertion here is not accurate.  A European 
> Council Resolution is by definition a "legal document." It was adopted 
> on 14 Dec 2020 after an extensive policy making proceeding and 
> consultations among EU Members over more than a year, and the subject 
> of 
> a vote by a EU governing body.  See 
> https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/12/14/encryption-council-adopts-resolution-on-security-through-encryption-and-security-despite-encryption/#
>
> As the Council's site notes, its Resolutions "set up political 
> commitments or positions."  See 
> https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/conclusions-resolutions/
>
> The point here was that the NCCoE activity - as many similar ones in 
> other technical bodies - is fully consonant with adopted European policy 
> (paid for by EU Member taxpayers).  It is also properly the subject of 
> notice by the IETF.  What seem inappropriate is characterising 
> alternative views on these matters as "not fine," or "I'm glad I'm not a 
> tax payer in a jurisdiction that's encouraging people to weaken the 
> security properties this WG has tried hard to improve" or denigrating 
> the integrity of a government agency because they don't agree with your 
> views.
>
> It is also worthy of note that shutting down discussion on the IETF TLS 
> list seems highly dependent on the views being articulated.
>
> --tony
>
> On 30-Sep-21 2:30 AM, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote:
>> First of all EC Resolution is not a legal document, it's a legal 
>> initiative. The resolution is a "call for action" but not an action 
>> per se - there's no legal consequence other than it is possible to 
>> bring this initiative now to european parliament.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls