Re: [TLS] Proposed text for removing renegotiation

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 12 June 2014 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AABA1A0278 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 Zg7-NgWEK8U3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1FDB1A01AE for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-51-90.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s5CGoQ48030752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-90.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.90] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <859F43324A6FEC448BFEA30C90405FA90550E0@SEAEMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:26 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <24FB0151-D8AB-464F-AA40-DB1A9EEDB91B@vpnc.org>
References: <CAFewVt65X1V6=A_HP_pcg=6nXNVFLxQmSsPB2rq1KvmGPRz+og@mail.gmail.com> <20140606223045.3B5AF1AD46@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <CACsn0cmcc6kXvOuqkZaDj7+QPdpY9qqQ58bs3s-JBGXdNJSZyw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPe45BM-uXd7DEBD_BBn=jhk8KkYB=facp+NMb2e4nBiw@mail.gmail.com> <1402299260.2427.2.camel@dhcp-2-127.brq.redhat.com> <CABkgnnX5+fXNDy1o7Pu60rp8vSx7XfKbt337e_q=+3fb8fXHJw@mail.gmail.com> <1402388399.2369.5.camel@dhcp-2-127.brq.redhat.com> <CACsn0cm5OzzjOh5nSXcu-cx+ZYFeJiJ5eGvgwjsWPUeX4ozz2g@mail.gmail.com> <1402476304.2305.8.camel@dhcp-2-127.brq.redhat.com> <CACsn0cmM4KpMgwXo0iTygsQ+En6N3J46jPY-Q3hfwzqG431M1w@mail.gmail.com> <5B1D7E570380A64989D4C069F7D14BC8CB7F66D6@PINTO.missi.ncsc.mil> <CACsn0ckoNvNQye09ekHPNtEMdhU58QzbWJiufTwGfkjBynKqxA@mail.gmail.com> <859F43324A6FEC448BFEA30C90405FA90550E0@SEAEMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com>
To: David Holmes <d.holmes@f5.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/QBqgXcEvS7S1nOcoNd0O6zwfUEI
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Proposed text for removing renegotiation
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 12 Jun 2014 16:50:31 -0000

On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:20 AM, David Holmes <d.holmes@f5.com> wrote:

> I'm not suggesting that this data moves the conversation about renegotiation one way or the other.

It certainly is good data that some/many of your customers (who I believe could be labelled as "typical") have little understanding of understanding what renegotiation is for. To me, that supports the "scrap it" argument.

--Paul Hoffman