IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS Impact on Network Security draft updated

Bret Jordan <jordan.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jordan.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252D8120154 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 D5bmWkaNWpNp for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x832.google.com (mail-qt1-x832.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::832]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4F31200B8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x832.google.com with SMTP id y26so43584161qto.4 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=P5WTBFHbfymROss2dVbwMZTQCP9CS7nsEWy4EDRCApk=; b=OxXHAPeZnDg6M4Ps6Av/v0LYaMFfYy4+E4Bmf3J2v+UBA6mESmyr8//KWqIA0tIIvg FtQGCh4GTEe476UCwBsq9iebP4ZjJguW9pQQ+lAeSMNoL3zphbau77C3UmCs1yIcK4d2 K/BHJT95R4QIeCJvAA8nVcwyye6j3R7RwVUZTSXIYi2oujEmSgWbvazPOf2oIDX3hJF4 sd9cjxXqWpi/SWzIBLQux6n56do9Db3Fbtj/9XfYHodim9n3s2JNJbVMJEy2yx63x5BV zcu/H3dK4U5pgXj7pWs55eXkDKtst02hjYFOT37fFWd2tq37IFhDheFwLeXZO7TOM+V0 cvaQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=P5WTBFHbfymROss2dVbwMZTQCP9CS7nsEWy4EDRCApk=; b=T9A56Zg4JHqyIdxRSyDoVdClbiKdahGU3S6/YAKzh8Kv432X+3gOFI8k5FTH8S3YyH K2sL6JEY9gHBMVWURHZGiexnmakz6PEN7w3KwZK//cuwZm6Irwcwn2GUmL7OgjTUVJHl ZVixnDyDrQkOo94ti1slsEyq0RhamG/KNcBIhRLDQM785ep8cigOnJS3Cevl1wi4TEN6 Oh9S5avWUC09gf5dEO6cO7sZoEaRz5B1cEkjEUme/zuY7uh2n4MT7F3xnvaOaTkTbP6l VROJYaXp6nipLt5XNY+RJojmT9PANt5xRJA/heKnnHEEi98WNfhjkJjJk9vb/Mj3bjXw u4yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUyScjMlCydDSk2jkzwr/qiUN6fOsdbJRMgEnKdSqWWzNfVHYXK YeIaRcIIeBXDcO0g7Gz77bk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9BM7Taz6iaAJWPmB8+lsEpMSUIOkD/ahjiHF1mmr9UMaaZEWtNISuFxMBynKgKeEP9OU4+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7b99:: with SMTP id p25mr55409609qtu.243.1563922612034; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.3.66] ([216.113.24.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x206sm20885438qkb.127.2019.07.23.15.56.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bret Jordan <jordan.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <70D6B48B-D155-4EB6-A825-809BFB8BEE0F@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A541DF7-C525-4EE2-8D60-57F506FE71B6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:56:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <77d58a41-7a6b-4886-a4d4-22dcb229100b@www.fastmail.com>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
To: Filippo Valsorda <filippo@ml.filippo.io>
References: <6AF48228-19C2-41C7-BA86-BA16940C3CFF@cisco.com> <77d58a41-7a6b-4886-a4d4-22dcb229100b@www.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/mwhc4n8-UENq_dtEJGszhMktXiY>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS Impact on Network Security draft updated
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:56:55 -0000

Informational documents do not (usually) have normative statements.  If they had normative language, they would be standards track document. 


Thanks,
Bret
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg."

> On Jul 23, 2019, at 6:46 PM, Filippo Valsorda <filippo@ml.filippo.io> wrote:
> 
> Before any technical or wording feedback, I am confused as to the nature of this document. It does not seem to specify any protocol change or mechanism, and it does not even focus on solutions to move the web further.
> 
> Instead, it looks like a well edited blog post, presenting the perspective of one segment of the industry. (The perspective seems to also lack consensus, but I believe even that is secondary.) Note how as of draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-05 there are no IANA considerations, no security considerations, and no occurrences of any of the BCP 14 key words (MUST, SHOULD, etc.).
> 
> Is there precedent for publishing such a document as an RFC?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status