Return-Path: 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 0B0A41A19F8 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2BhYuIS5wtNR for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-f178.google.com (mail-yk0-f178.google.com [209.85.160.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83BD51A19F7 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykdu9 with SMTP id u9so232042081ykd.2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zP9gw/sRrKgTHQYoleXNT4ph0IXCr23vSowbaSyAt9I=; b=bc9OMC4Xm/acGR6/pRRfvQL813h+crj7WebZ8WFPNHlKZc/ym1I/Z+IWsXU2u2VRE5 jOjUqxSxUXIeVONXTFnKF7yv/3zH9/b/9uPscHwKaNX6FBLkt1M+Yo7jdzreeGmxTiyH 8wdMJzGUh21PtElrWOne+SDd2587LDQ8aXnTOmsMqbTFABVWU0dZtfw9OmRcYfiauU39 skBZj0bSgxTSjFYUML1sj6tRcxK64GHeq6mH9tM3W/2SSrnztQrXCKM1zyJhaiOe4sbp 5RkMvXi0EZirQqR8fmzqjifEZbm8AtbzwD6I19Fkh0YLqL670vb0sGHl+UFNz3cvdJRR hVfw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsj5c/SoHr+5sQOlz/v6u1j4Drj1hexFlj3TKU8hk5VUdLkboBMD3t5DUxdHWYaE0BfEfX MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.124.81 with SMTP id q78mr30819182ykb.124.1442434837704; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.61.6 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:20:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: Brian Smith To: Joseph Salowey Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11390a861d27cf051fe308d8 Archived-At: Cc: "tls@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:20:40 -0000 --001a11390a861d27cf051fe308d8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote: > There has been some discussion to remove anonymous DH as described in > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg17481.html. I think > ekr's message sums up the pros and cons well. I don't think we have > consensus on this issue yet. Please respond on this message by Monday, > September 21, if you have an opinion. > I think it is a good idea to remove DH_anon_* and similar ECDH_anon_* cipher suites. This isn't an endorsement of the raw public key modes. Cheers, Brian --001a11390a861d27cf051fe308d8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> wrote:
There has been some discussion to remove anonymous DH as described in=C2= =A0https://www.ietf.org/= mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg17481.html.=C2=A0 I think ekr's message sums up the pros and cons well.=C2=A0 I= don't think we have consensus on this issue yet.=C2=A0 Please respond = on this message by Monday, September 21, if you have an opinion. =C2=A0

I think it is a good idea to remo= ve=C2=A0DH_anon_* and similar ECDH_anon_* cipher suites.

This isn't = an endorsement of the raw public key modes.
<= br>
Cheers,
Bri= an
--001a11390a861d27cf051fe308d8--