Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net> Tue, 13 March 2018 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <colm@allcosts.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477C6124B0A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=allcosts-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 R5_WnUwd3xqV for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (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 32F05120724 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id q184so8034410ywh.13 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=allcosts-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YEVm3EkGPhITOF4TtgNxDtNuqvKFX4yPZSNTS6g6H6U=; b=IdAxxZjwCpqJSG2MWQDNFck9h7zR34mfWltJHrOrr8xtwP+K+oshSB3Pkvdzrxlcs2 7DHGzvCKN8E08LdDlKhTlYXIU+q2oQTMsthtVZC1+/98CfX8H2BlHIvZOW1iYlDQPcSD UwXEosa8PvrqbVynN/Y+8A2t2XcplL7yO6cOTGcnNJye8k5dEDpuDs+aQmHDzT774xNS 8ZrHXaoFOj/fQsC4Vsu0iDKq5xsbMcuLbsbOdEsI8K0kumn0yg3TRIUmyzRYpZ/X2EGE GzGhQjUkUqxf087YPrZubM3CyEbN/dyDHMNAqhgSrSwSvGZx3vlDtkDbxUafMuTUMAJT CrTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YEVm3EkGPhITOF4TtgNxDtNuqvKFX4yPZSNTS6g6H6U=; b=hd8RGev1xqrIjjUmKfhqyqm+5fK2tr2qtyG8ARDoQOIzmPKbfbJQVUi0gARhrQRGsA K2dCThH8egihDJx2Fc8QFJsi1nSyZPKHziAgtLG7EZ1uCbmN10GRtCkHNaoLg0lm8Y11 ZtYwu2hINJc7/e6mRjoALVcxpLY5qGBPv+TbJ6RLg5/hlWuU5HlBd874AMRiaN44i9Cx FzmPwM0On/IdBRnDhACPdk/tY6Up6fplx7f4HpL70tVdMWEcAsK9Dx0U8R9ZSLM8XNyR icrkQp8PUTKuM2PxW0l/cdEzHtIyBEuQba3qQ9naFGTl+UO17T432/h9jgekk0ekBghg YLAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FvO980wl2q7B1Z7EJCpa7+gUnc39obAh763dqR0zjzjfo7q8PJ X65YOXUC1IFP5/lYxOwFa9Sx4IdVQhL83dk871UnOw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELurNeLX9qy+yVTVpAwfTUQxUBn82XWStgI7QWa9DUmOmgjvg5NOzLAkqkEas4hX3XpSExTGS9trD7HC2cht2Eg=
X-Received: by 10.13.219.22 with SMTP id d22mr765534ywe.315.1520953613123; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.108.203 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:06:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d7ec110f-2a0b-cf97-94a3-eeb5594d8c24@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com> <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie> <CAOgPGoBYc7O+qmjM-ptkRkE6mRsOYgc5O7Wu9pm3drFp3TVa6Q@mail.gmail.com> <d7dfdc1a-2c96-fd88-df1b-3167fe0f804b@cs.tcd.ie> <CAHbuEH7E8MhFcMt2GSngSrGxN=6bU6LD49foPC-mdoUZboH_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <1a024320-c674-6f75-ccc4-d27b75e3d017@nomountain.net> <2ed0gc.p5dcxd.31eoyz-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie> <d7ec110f-2a0b-cf97-94a3-eeb5594d8c24@cs.tcd.ie>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Colm_MacC=C3=A1rthaigh?= <colm@allcosts.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:06:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAF6GDcaG7nousyQ6wotEg4dW8PFuXi=riH2702eZZn2fwfLQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fb14ad4ae7405674c9b19"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/WEu0uO9Ux4IWBI_sqEsizRV8ZrI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:06:57 -0000

It's my fault for the ambiguous wording, but in this context the quote from
me reads as the opposite of my intent.  To be more clear: what I meant was
that while the proposals aren't making much progress, I don't mind that
it's being discussed.

I'm happy to have mailing list threads on the topic and agenda time devoted
to it (I don't go in person, but I do watch the videos). Since it's an area
of such disagreement, I'd prefer to see /more/ discussion, not less.
There's always hope of movement and progress on either side, and I think
good discourse lessens the risk of dozens of fragmentary DIY solutions,
which I think will be the worst kind of outcome of non-engagement.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
> wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> Just to be clear: I'm still waiting for the chairs and/or
> AD to explain how the proposed discussion of this draft
> is consistent with IETF processes, given the results of
> the discussion in Prague (a very clear lack of consensus
> to even work on this topic), and the discussion of the
> -00 version of this late last year. IOW, I don't consider
> my objection has been answered.
>
> In case people haven't got all the mails from last year
> at the front of their minds, I went through them for you
> and have provided links and selected quotes below. Yes,
> the quotes are selected but I think do indicate that the
> opposition to these ideas is as before. And there were
> also the usual voices in support of weakening TLS in this
> manner as well - a read of the thread clearly indicates
> to me that discussion of this draft in London will, as
> before, be a divisive waste of time and energy.
>
> Chairs: Please drop the agenda item, or explain how any
> of this fits our process, because I'm just not getting
> it.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
>
>
> me, "IMO the WG shouldn't touch this terrible proposal with a
> bargepole."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24493.html
>
> Randy Bush: "there are a lot of us lurkers out here a bit horrified
> watching this wg go off the rails." (Different thread, but same topic)
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24539.html
>
> Uri Blumenthal: "+1 to Stephen"
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24542.html
>
> Rich Salz: "put this on hold for a year or two after TLS 1.3 is done"
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24544.html
>
> Ion Larranaga Azcue, "I really don't feel confortable with the approach
> taken in this draft."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24562.html
>
> Hubert Kario: "to be clear: me too" (replying about hating the idea)
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24578.html
>
> Rich Salz: "I am opposed to the basic concept of injecting a third-party
> into the E2E TLS process."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24585.html
>
> Florian Weimer: "I don't understand why this complicated approach is
> needed."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24607.html
>
> Ben Kaduk: "I do not see any potential for a workable solution."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24620.html
>
> Uri Blumenthal: "why do we spend time discussing this draft?"
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24639.html
>
> Christian Huitema: "Maybe they have found ways to manage their
> applications and servers without breaking TLS..."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24643.html
>
> Ted Lemon: "I think we should stop."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24649.html
>
> Andrei Popov: "deploying a weakened configuration of TLS 1.3 (without
> PFS) would not meet the intent of those future mandates/requirements."
> (On "industry need")
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24656.html
>
> Ben Kaduk: "The time I am spending on this thread is time that I am not
> able to spend improving the TLS 1.3 document."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24660.html
>
> Dave Garrett: "Please, let's just let this mess die. "
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24667.html
>
> Uri Blumenthal "I'm against weakening the protocol, since there are
> other ways to accomplish the perlustrator's mission"
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24670.html
>         Yeah, I had to look it up too:-)
>         https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/perlustrator
>
> Adam Caudill: "To be honest, I’m rather surprised that this group
> continues to spend time on this."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24712.html
>
> Tony Arcieri, "Having worked (and presently working) for more than one
> company of this nature, in the payments business no less, I would like
> to restate that it's incredibly disingenuous to cite the need for
> self-MitM capability as an "industry" concern."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24715.html
>
> Colm MacCárthaigh: "I don't have too strong an interest in this thread,
> it's not going anywhere, and I don't mind that."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24720.html
>
> Peter Saint-Andre: "+1 to Stephen's request." (for chairs to close down
> the discussion)
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24734.html
>
> Cas Cremers: " I think such a mechanism should not be part of the TLS
> 1.3 standard."
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24885.html
>
> Karthikeyan Bhargavan: "I really don’t recommend any change to the TLS
> 1.3 design to accomplish any of this"
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24903.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>


-- 
Colm