Re: [TLS] chairs - please shutdown wiretapping discussion...

Stephen Farrell <> Sat, 08 July 2017 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93511129AF4 for <>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 07:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qco9x5oUkSbf for <>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 07:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 204521201F2 for <>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 07:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986C4BE2F; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:33:17 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7JJCJw8qi5lw; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:33:15 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EE29BE2C; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:33:15 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1499524395; bh=MFtj7gUG4fvFpZ5vEYrGsWADCrHDl0vy/qvo0i7DQpM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=V/H9LVtNHE89D9zRbdVTNperGjCspKrrZGDFMOWMWa2FofheJGaCfyzczQBB3MZyB twqeIOZScmsNyMf785zn9ZyAZ5JRKXVA/Y2LH3wVr6jUprQrkiGr7n4OQtaWunZuXI /vrVe2MX0RkVJtZ/UzqGzKMB8BDv6DjKVRt03Vps=
To: Yaron Sheffer <>, tls chair <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:33:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QpNkfEX5utLIEd129HlKf0vRGn3mXRItw"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] chairs - please shutdown wiretapping discussion...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 14:33:23 -0000

On 08/07/17 15:27, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> Like you, I am very unhappy with this draft, and would not support its
> adoption as a WG draft. However I think that open discussion is in
> general good, and that the best venue for discussion of this draft is
> this mailing list. Even if some of this discussion devolves into generic
> "are we pro or against wiretapping" questions.

FWIW I believe that we have had that discussion about breaking
tls over and over on this and other lists. I see no value in
doing it yet again, even if the proximate cause is a new variation
of the "here's a way to break tls" class of drafts. (Someday we
should find someone who'd document all the broken break-tls ideas
that have been rightly rejected over the years.)

> I don't think this is a significant distraction that could derail
> (D)TLS, moreover, you will recall that in Chicago several new drafts
> were adopted to the working group. So the WG does feel that TLS is in
> good enough shape that we can spend some bandwidth on other things.

Maybe I'm more easily distracted, at least by this topic;-)

Anyway, I'm fine that it's for the chairs to figure that out.


> Thanks,
>     Yaron
> On 08/07/17 12:17, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Sean/Joe,
>> This is a request that you, as chairs, shut down the distracting
>> wiretapping discussion, at least until DTLS1.3 is done.
>> I have planned to spend time reading draft 21 and DTLS, but that
>> won't happen if we keep having to fight off the latest attempts
>> to break TLS. I'd not be surprised if I weren't the only one
>> finding that distraction an irritating waste of time. Finishing
>> TLS1.3 and getting DTLS1.3 on the way surely needs to not be
>> constantly de-railed by these attempts to break TLS.
>> Therefore I'd ask that you declare this discussion closed for at
>> least that long (i.e until DTLS1.3 is done).
>> I'd also ask that you not allocate agenda time for wiretapping
>> in Prague.
>> Thanks,
>> S.
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list