Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Kathleen Moriarty <> Fri, 09 March 2018 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622C712D88F for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jecObRVL1Yln for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC96312E85E for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:58:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id c11so4428312ith.4 for <>; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:58:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hvqSIUMvMAJRTNLJDsX0+9AKMsHIvhDsxsewdGaPrmI=; b=RyVKT4MVTqHEOTCAfeSK5kuQOsKEnDbSnTzaYLtQ8MP0x3eMQvJilkcv/l2rCo83Cc NnKlu+GwfkHl/rP11PRNK3V92KfeRPxWsW+bdq9AdOM1sFnY2OLjxGgN1FF7BhpbLuH7 3j2VY/ULRSDb4fDaDuuByZgRKuw67Yo1Sk2tzZNLwikGMYlNs8T2UStFOU3dB2/d0i9w VJhq6x2wVek6xhFmK3FtMPlISCC7bryUR5+0w9ttCWu5Fg70NufJHvjCbpULyWIeVoLH ApAHiBVXAazBA6wnVA8sgXdDEdzpu0sDifk7AQRo1nqQ5qldPUzsJ/Bhl1NL9T3sF35A urpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hvqSIUMvMAJRTNLJDsX0+9AKMsHIvhDsxsewdGaPrmI=; b=lgtchBZcj8yHy7YNoArfyTjtzM5YGp9cgwwHKZexfh0LB2RQZKczT1M9QSu1+KHtTM afBVFe6vdxyTc6cTY0+0zABfJBDNWeLuxmb51oqiNjKH7ovQrdpMWen/pkV1EzrZawW4 cvDy0Gd8viFUvk7pjbakoUveuGLcguDs2Phd0PxZMkarGtxyoQJ9nSQ1mRk+TQKM1f6J ZeiUkXcm0e2yUKmzGQ5IGP47m96x8ivAUg/+AqruH26gLojVwudG+CVpHxTE0yrYIn/G s1zqRe7CZ2XRvbKzke0kBpMgEzv8m0dFVmurZiBD3fVGicRbN1PXU2KikGHuM2W7Zl0W WBZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FzxFh97auv5qw7HVBxOoFvXVRiFKWzNaKvSY9SLw57rYUTrmT3 eFwJlzCYxJbyTS7qybOHCM72jl5B93YzWMcycfM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuRXrVK5BVOoQECxTZv6kyriFMlBnAYDY0Sb+KlnssQRPQ7hkX/ckpq1es0mFc8rGCnH+I07xxRpCRN6ehQ06s=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:730d:: with SMTP id y13-v6mr510301itb.130.1520632691153; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:58:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:57:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:57:30 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: Joseph Salowey <>, "<>" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:58:15 -0000

Hello, Stephen.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Stephen Farrell
<> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> I'm sorry, but I gotta say that answer seems to me both unresponsive
> to the questions asked and unconvincing.
> On 08/03/18 23:08, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>> In the meeting in Prague there was interest in this problem space, but
>> neither the consensus to accept or reject this work.
> Without rough consensus to adopt, the work is not adopted.
> But your statement above isn't accurate - it wasn't "this work"
> (as in this draft) that was discussed in Prague, but rather the
> entire idea of weakening TLS in these ways - quoting from the
> Prague minutes [1]:
> "The main question: Is this subject something that the WG should
> consider?"

The hummed answer to that question was very close to 50/50 in the
room, inconclusive.

> There is clearly no consensus to adopt *any* work in this space,
> whether that be draft-green or this latest iteration from Russ
> and Ralph.

It was clear that there was no consensus to adopt draft-green and that
is considered dead in the water, we agree there.  Since there was
interest (50% of the room) to consider work in this space, I agree
with the chairs assessment to allow this presentation.  I am confident
they will work on any hums to carefully assess next steps and if any
future proposals belong in this WG or elsewhere.

> I see nothing whatsoever to indicate any significant change in
> sets of opinions since Prague.
> What makes you think iterating on yet more proposals like this
> will ever conclude? If there's no evidence of that we ought not
> waste the time and energy. Can you point at any change that
> could possibly indicate that this bun-fight is worth doing yet
> again?
>>  The authors have
>> revised their proposal to address some of the concerns raised by working
>> group members and are asking to bring the new approach in front of the
>> working group.
> What significant change has there been since -00 of Russ and Ralph's
> draft? I see nothing major there. that -00 was debated on the list
> which is the primary place for  discussion. My read of that set of
> threads it that it pretty clearly showed that the same folks have
> the same opinions with no significant movement. Can you point at
> some evidence to the contrary? If not, we shouldn't bother to waste
> more time on this.
> If instead you mean Russ and Ralph's draft differs from draft-green,
> then see above - it wasn't only draft-green that was rejected in
> Prague, but the entire idea of adopting work in this space, which
> includes Russ and Ralph's -00 and -01.
> That the authors have asked for time counts for nothing, when the
> WG have no consensus to work in this space. If just asking for time
> does matter, then I'll now publicly repeat my request for time
> to refure the assertions that'll be made for breaking TLS. You said
> no to my request, so what's different about one that relates to a
> draft that has been debated on the list and attracted significant
> negative comment?
>> I believe in this case this is the right thing to do even
>> if it appears there is some repetition of topic.
> It is not "some repetition" - this topic has been debated f2f and
> on this draft on the list and there's zero evidence of significant
> changes in opinion, in fact the opposite. Can you point at any
> such evidence? If not, your position as chairs seems illogical.
>> However, if the new
>> approach fails to achieve significantly more support I believe the authors
>> will need to find another path for their work that does not go through the
>> TLS working group.
> But the WG has already demonstrated a lack of consensus to even
> consider "work in this space" (your choice of words I believe.)
> That should be enough. What does or doesn't happen outside the
> TLS WG is not at issue here.
> To reiterate, in Prague you asked "The main question: Is this subject
> something that the WG should consider?" The result was a clear lack of
> any consensus to work in this space, which means not working in this
> space. Yet here we are again giving agenda time to highly controversial
> proposals in this space.
> Please: just take this off the agenda and let the WG do it's real work.
> Thanks,
> S.
> [1]

Relevant comment from minutes:
Hums: No clarity whatsoever. Seemed pretty even.


>> Cheers,
>> Joe
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Sean, Joe,
>>> On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>> I’ve posted the draft agendas:
>>>> Monday:
>>> 101-tls-sessb
>>> That includes:
>>> "
>>> TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
>>>  - 10min draft - Russ
>>>  - 10min discussion - Chairs
>>>  - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
>>> "
>>> Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
>>> being given any time. I also have some questions
>>> below.
>>> This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
>>> very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
>>> that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
>>> doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
>>> that anything has changed in the meantime.
>>> Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
>>> with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
>>> that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
>>> am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
>>> different from what was discussed on the list so I
>>> see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.
>>> Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
>>> being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?
>>> And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?
>>> As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
>>> topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
>>> of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
>>> then what's the plan for ending this?
>>> Thanks,
>>> S.
>>> PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
>>> and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
>>> also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
>>> the WG based on that euphemism.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list


Best regards,