Re: [TLS] WG actions (was Encrypt-then-MAC again (was padding bug))

Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> Thu, 05 December 2013 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=loW3=VM=acm.org=bmoeller@srs.kundenserver.de>
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 83AD31ADF8B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:59:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 N8Br8RgPKV_u for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241E01ADF57 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:59:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com (mail-oa0-f41.google.com [209.85.219.41]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MfNmw-1WDE8W0G8g-00Oxy4; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:59:22 +0100
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j17so18255294oag.14 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 03:59:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=8Ou7H0GG45p6FjAL1IqMbp00px+sk195FXCknHIcNyg=; b=Z1MwTm+P2CHa8IagfuDLptcNSHtRdn+KInicLVaDvGc4inD5gP5VPnaOx2f6I1QO7Y Yzj0pWyStBefW1UJFQGdoQMXeEgeQLDdqoKA7mzGmss8FmlaFX5Orz0bTXt3zJKMfuRQ B/i+xnePhkz1C04YYnXQX0HyD0FZFxCqNiPyFwMB4mNghP6UGjt/QbGDwtHS2tT1OObx QiHdQLc4C+RHADXyUZ/KNA4qSPvn54vZn1tB876ByfIzvlg3SUvbFJdlRIQHlJTsmhPs p/2IyL5QHauPkwL6zUpilaeGLXkq/QHrom7Olc+FeqFTTWEwRPYonHpNtiGEyF8reti8 d9+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.115.164 with SMTP id jp4mr67710037oeb.19.1386244760873; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 03:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.137.194 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:59:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <79C48EEB-9FCE-4AE5-96C0-8AA2193A9354@iki.fi>
References: <79C48EEB-9FCE-4AE5-96C0-8AA2193A9354@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:59:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CADMpkcL_e2m87UX38GLF4n2n9M7_FEjC1JHu9GC8ucHKefNkyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
To: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01161b468b35b504ecc842e2
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:h6wsi6Ex/W4JdIteB23zldLr5G2RlejSWZeccLPuMvw nlQKuFOpxUH0LR4TEa6fLMEC73e6YZ8gekPEczoS2BMALBq2sh obfE5T/g5HWuHqEKW0Mh0pbKEKj2Mp4eHt0ojt7U4bM0EZeujv OQfUmcNnKgUNK22SNfFizCTTGimig3WZcq/bBz9aY8MI/9njgP eb7yo8Umf1O5l15B4zvFHKeF33q5xaQOq52WIB49TcggSz/vWr 9G+CmL7zoeTUYhDLoigH/XwK8SSKfTY0KuWBFi/O9/Ax2IT0pT Pb2yAqu390RpAkkeWn4d6yExZEpHniv0x1hrAUpl8rNNjbHCLv kA3SUp8B9C/EKZObpuNP6s/1izlkzzELCqJt0HDaETZkqivC3/ Jkmww+/wDsC86gcREXuYbm/trr4npp3XH6DSW8qSE9zz3fN821 Dth4H
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG actions (was Encrypt-then-MAC again (was padding bug))
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:59:28 -0000

As I wrote earlier, I think that Eric thought that result from humming
reflected a lack of consensus previous seen on the mailing list, as
previously summarized by him here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10004.html

Had there been consensus on the mailing list already, that couldn't have
been silently overruled at the meeting.  Specifically, RFC 2418 requires
that "Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about topics or
issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list, or are
significantly different from previously arrived mailing list consensus MUST
be reviewed on the mailing list."  In-person meetings exist to facilitate
discussion, but they're not where decisions are finalized.

Bodo