Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

[Colm MacCárthaigh <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>


-- 
Colm