Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 58E711A700E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 EWUR9ZXDMc4U for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A1D1A7007 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640AB9A4086; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9QjTK6zMc-R; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8699A4060; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-234-261944693"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoBT9C=pWebXShqxhbOsnqK+OZe=-n-SvZ_pH-dAtRaWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:46:52 -0400
Message-Id: <6F2DEF2E-8E4C-49E4-9CA9-D5275FA1B2F5@vigilsec.com>
References: <CAOgPGoBT9C=pWebXShqxhbOsnqK+OZe=-n-SvZ_pH-dAtRaWXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/h2W81HIR5SojZnA7uvSkXb8gBFo>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH
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: <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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:27 -0000

> There has been some discussion to remove anonymous DH as described in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg17481.html.  I think ekr's message sums up the pros and cons well.  I don't think we have consensus on this issue yet.  Please respond on this message by Monday, September 21, if you have an opinion.

I see no reason to keep it.

Russ