MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt64QphK5=WtAZhN8A7uhjmMZ1wc0nLOKvS8sgTRwY_vkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOgPGoBT9C=pWebXShqxhbOsnqK+OZe=-n-SvZ_pH-dAtRaWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFewVt7_23v18HpzzDy4ew1h66iNTBOSdP+CVBgc9T-4Z3isfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150916210113.GP13294@localhost>
 <CABcZeBPY6JRnLiqd=-aQQ+8kZGHa3TujSr9+hn1CSt1B_X-r=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFewVt64QphK5=WtAZhN8A7uhjmMZ1wc0nLOKvS8sgTRwY_vkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:38:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM9-pa5Cn0JR0vJhiN7H=86GcmFPKgriebNi28r0zTBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86c19089ee37051fe41f31
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/RzqAhF3KhpVoLYNox1TkYozzFxM>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH
Precedence: list

--047d7b86c19089ee37051fe41f31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>> In addition, they are already part of TLS, so the question would be if we
>> have
>> consensus to remove them....
>>
>
> This thread  is about the removal of DH_anon_*, not about raw public keys.
>

Yes, I'm aware of that.

The point I was making was that presently we have:

- Certificates
- Raw keys
- Anon

This proposal is to remove Anon, thus making things strictly simpler, since
Raw keys can replace Anon but not the other way around. One might imagine
a proposal to remove Raw keys, but that's not the question here and even if
that failed (as I expect it would) things will still be simpler if we
remove Anon.

-Ekr

--047d7b86c19089ee37051fe41f31
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Brian Smith <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:brian@briansmith.org" target=3D"_blank">brian@briansmith.org<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Wed=
, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:ekr@rtfm.com" target=3D"_blank">ekr@rtfm.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">In addition, they are alre=
ady part of TLS, so the question would be if we have<div>consensus to remov=
e them....</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div></span><div>This thread=
 =C2=A0is about the removal of DH_anon_*, not about raw public keys.</div><=
/div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I&#39;m aware of tha=
t.</div><div><br></div><div>The point I was making was that presently we ha=
ve:</div><div><br></div><div>- Certificates</div><div>- Raw keys</div><div>=
- Anon</div><div><br></div><div>This proposal is to remove Anon, thus makin=
g things strictly simpler, since</div><div>Raw keys can replace Anon but no=
t the other way around. One might imagine</div><div>a proposal to remove Ra=
w keys, but that&#39;s not the question here and even if</div><div>that fai=
led (as I expect it would) things will still be simpler if we remove Anon.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b86c19089ee37051fe41f31--