Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Artyom,
Thanks for mentioning the ID and you are right that draft Fenter is the
supporting problem description.

The reason it was written was to help folks understand why legitimate
internal out-of-band decryption is still needed on data once it reaches its
destination and that there isn’t a viable alternative that we are aware of.
   Especially not in-line MitM decryption.  It just doesn’t scale.  The
draft lists the legitimate internal requirements and speaks to the facts
around some of the suggestions that have been offered.

 It’s a good read and we are happy to answer questions in advance as
needed.

Darin

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:11 PM Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Sean, Joe,
>
> WG also has this at its disposal:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00
> Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility?
> Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other.
>
> | Artyom Gavrichenkov
> | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
> | mailto: ximaera@gmail.com
> | fb: ximaera
> | telegram: xima_era
> | skype: xima_era
> | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sean, Joe,
> >
> > On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
> >> I’ve posted the draft agendas:
> >>
> >> Monday:
> >>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tls-sessb
> >
> > That includes:
> > "
> > TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
> >  - 10min draft - Russ
> >   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/
> >  - 10min discussion - Chairs
> >  - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
> > "
> >
> > Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
> > being given any time. I also have some questions
> > below.
> >
> > This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
> > very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
> > that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
> > doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
> > that anything has changed in the meantime.
> >
> > Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
> > with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
> > that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
> > am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
> > different from what was discussed on the list so I
> > see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.
> >
> > Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
> > being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?
> >
> > And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?
> >
> > As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
> > topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
> > of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
> > then what's the plan for ending this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S.
> >
> > PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
> > and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
> > also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
> > the WG based on that euphemism.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>