Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process

On Sun, March 30, 2014 4:46 pm, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> writes:
>
>>But everyone in the WG is concerned about getting encryption to work
>>correctly. We're also all concerned about getting authentication to work
>>correctly. And about getting authenticated encryption to work correctly.
>
> Some of us are more worried about making it fit for purpose than in
> fiddling
> with crypto details.

  Well if you do not care about encryption working correctly (it's a direct
quote from the email I was replying to) then don't even bother with it;
your purpose doesn't need encryption. And bringing up a use case that
is happy with incorrect encryption is a waste of time for this WG.

>              The former requires careful thought, for the latter you
> just pull a known-good mechanism off the shelf at the end of the design
> process, plug it in, and you're done.  To quote Peter Fairbrother on the
> crypto list:
>
>   A similar design methodology should be used for security products (and
>   software products).  Start with the purpose of the product, then the
> human
>   and electronic interfaces, then the hardware and last of all the
> detailed
>   crypto or code. Oh yes, you think about the crypto all the way through,
> but
>   only in terms of what is possible and what resources it will take -
> worry
>   about the detailed crypto (or code) last.

  I agree. The purpose of TLS is to secure a network service (as I said
originally, see /etc/services to see who'll use TLS). If we start listing
that
IMAP and POP and HTTP will use TLS-- "what else?"-- it's a distraction.

>>I fail to see how documenting use cases will help us get encryption to
>> work
>>correctly
>
> It'll allow us to see whether the encryption is fit for purpose.  Since
> I'm in
> a quoting mood I'll do Bob Morris this time:
>
>   The behaviour of a system without a specification can never be wrong,
> only surprising.

  You should try to find quotes that relate to what you're responding to.
I never said anything about not having a specification and I never said
we need to immediately start "fiddling with crypto details". I said that
enumerating applications that use TLS is not a productive use of time
(I certainly hope you are not equating a use case document with a
specification), and I said that we are all concerned with making encryption
work correctly (in response to the arresting statement that "Watson is
concerned" about it).

> TLS has certainly shown some... surprising behaviour over its lifetime.

  How would an enumerated list of the applications that use TLS, or a
use case document for that matter, have helped any of that?

  Dan.

> Peter.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>