Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext (Additional Random

Dean Anderson <> Tue, 27 April 2010 10:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41003A6832; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.556
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.557, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dfKi6vryk9yt; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028613A682E; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id o3RANEMU010313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:23:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 06:23:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <>
To: Nicolas Williams <>
In-Reply-To: <20100426213634.GD10389@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc:,, Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext (Additional Random
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:24:32 -0000

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:18:33PM -0500, Marsh Ray wrote:
> > Taking off of CC list as this seems to be very TLS specific.
> This is an IETF LC, not a WG LC; IETF LC comments should be sent to
>  If anything, we might want to drop

I cannot post to, for dishonest and apparently unlawful
reasons. I won the consensus call in the PR Action, but the consensus
was fraudulently reported. But the PR Action itself is not consistent
with the legal requirements to suspend member rights in a member
corporation: The law requires a vote of the membership, and that 51% of
the membership vote for the suspension/expulsion.  There are other legal
issues (e.g. antitrust) involved with preventing corporations from
participating in a standards body, but I won't go into those here.

However, fact remains that I cannot post to

> > On 4/26/2010 3:38 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > How is the sub-thread on RNGs and PRNGs relevant here?
> > 
> > The draft was said to strengthen some properties of the protocol,
> > particularly entropy in the RNG. In order to evaluate the draft, we need
> > to agree on what those properties are supposed to be and how they affect
> > the different protocol structures.
> By analogy to legal review, if we don't need to reach the issue, then we
> don't need to discuss it.
> RNG/PRNG matters either apply, in which case we can might in, or they
> don't.  

The subject of entropy of PRNGs is substance of the draft.

The only way not to reach a question about substance is to not even get
to the contents of the draft for some other reason (e.g. procedural
objection). But you have no such objection, and no reason not to get to
an analysis of the contents of draft, so there is no reason to avoid
analysis of the substance.


Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494