IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] NULL cipher to become a MUST NOT in UTA BCP

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 04 September 2014 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 8F9C71A8905 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 tFyhRuxxyQOT for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE901A034A for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF59D438080 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=rzD0alCAx9s6JW1mO+/6 fATjDk0=; b=EnKjufYgGillGfwNs7xtrp0dxRhbmaFgKI/G8bTP33kE5Oh/s+yq gfpvn/2zuVsmicNjo32LcP9YAjPsepxrfWeumdPJGBNLIx03ZdePfOi5ya5AsmFz jev/emD25j8LGpTjiLAd9L13GaHS5uxpP+ydtEQJ1SWc+xCJj9h7d2w=
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A29FC43806C for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id r20so1368141wiv.11 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.77.243 with SMTP id v19mr7083262wjw.18.1409845212565; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.231.131 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADMpkcLcFaVBfi3fbjnF9RhkMU56GHNiCmvF46fgsza7Yz4bRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54048985.1020005@net.in.tum.de> <CAMeZVwtQ09B6Ero2C=75m5JdAYnEAENNcESd_gg_Ro2UhA9dyA@mail.gmail.com> <3EB754B7-F6B2-4207-A2F0-E61F32EE1E40@ll.mit.edu> <54075016.6040406@net.in.tum.de> <20140903174958.GF14392@mournblade.imrryr.org> <5407574B.5060708@net.in.tum.de> <9120B6EE-F023-4724-9116-A169993F58E8@ll.mit.edu> <CAMeZVwu1xaAmxUBp5zO1YXCEUSnr=6FiKr8A_WfVUAzLZBb8mA@mail.gmail.com> <CADMpkcLcFaVBfi3fbjnF9RhkMU56GHNiCmvF46fgsza7Yz4bRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:40:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhJZQuSEWCRcjUu+7_uTLAcYOtNXHFV8yBUsSrj8jb9ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/iwXczMDH8Ktpvcm1OatrH5mYTiY
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] NULL cipher to become a MUST NOT in UTA BCP
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, 04 Sep 2014 15:40:14 -0000

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> wrote:
> "Securing application-layer protocols" versus "specialized purposes" doesn't
> appear to be a very useful distinction for standardization purposes
> [...]

+1.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status