Re: [TLS] Please discuss: draft-housley-evidence-extns-00<

[Nelson B Bolyard <[e-mail]>]

Peter Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I don't see any choice. TLS Evidence has to become a work 
> item. This is not to say I support the particular technical 
> approach: but the initiative is appropriate, addressing with 
> technical means both data retention (corporate wiretapping 
> obligations) and the way in which regulated ESIGN sites are 
> applying https and SSL in practice.

I still have not heard a convincing case that this stuff belongs in TLS.
There doesn't seem to be consensus in the WG that it belongs in TLS, either.

So far, the arguments for putting this into TLS seem to be:
- we want this to be ubiquitous
- TLS is ubiquitous, and TLS already does crypto, so
- we should shoe-horn this into TLS.

One imagines that the same logic COULD have been used by the SSL/TLS
inventors years ago.  They could have argued:

- we want SSL/TLS to be ubiquitous
- TCP is ubiquitous, and already does transport, so
- we should shoe-horn TLS into TCP.

I'm glad they didn't.  The same objections that one might have to
putting TLS into TCP apply now, to putting signature-based evidence
collection into TLS.

-- 
Nelson B      (mozilla TLS implementor)

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls