Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted

Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ximaera@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 54EC4126BF3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:11:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 e3lW77mctjzU for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22b.google.com (mail-vk0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22b]) (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 1CC83124234 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b65so916405vka.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:11:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HpLYCo1hfkwTUR75dNR9+TN3F/prATE7UwH4MNXPGpU=; b=R4NSCZCddAVROhKmYhRnkFNM42GA6vUtNIOPOtNdI3fWAB2ATVV0DMYgotAWjZpvTY sPGTP+FFF5LdGCLfdtKYeYCjfkMOZWP6jfCetsywZ/nKoBHMUadQlm0xyquJF3QeQ+Zm 5pU3r1K9bwE/IIH0I69glyrVc0D5P7RJ/Q272t0UCxjrLTvmN+FTOdHXf/8H076xksAP Fu6S4pt/oYxGPalhQHTQpnAZquykuORxaE/VRPX6DiCvQ1bvixMdm+Dtj4GguikLJ4VZ +ti+TAsqPH5o8o7IeKyGrN57VnRTIy4BiMHYm/HI3L1OuOW9i2iJKqFU3QjR5UEPXXTE VMeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HpLYCo1hfkwTUR75dNR9+TN3F/prATE7UwH4MNXPGpU=; b=Kzp9XFSFTIcHxBI3A1tQrZ1z41rx96jgHtqW5dDymE6eaBTyTBeWI8Hh5t9As+jBbP 9foTjH5eyuyDrhlJ5Hb5/gtnAWmjXxGC1cw4ngkPpxhJkSZRsT9oaJDl0vCbCzmtsBA6 kzIfsiD3/NKJLYrmMaQsEEz0vYtJIP7ZcilWZQhR3qTVrWHHoXsTBFlgMuIvyvdcrDPi bOzIUb5IiNkejy/i6IaCZqw03htJEPg4YTP1GLAH9fPrMwN5qUEPYKIPq813Hz0zSO3Q cC/qBcthH/ad2eyOpxpkMgfUqy6nzyl3wplUWNjFGFegPfDnFtnpyQoXCjDZGnc3ezlE kFRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAGeg1RGb9BVw7pyZ/z3Aw22OrsQUFdVRg1H0n2XlQDN5Ik0es6 2SjFk29L2I2NCt/TCWlwNyhyXpA11nsdc9rsuTE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELslkZR/4by4GD16i9YGowzJ5FKB7JJsEdAqmsNfZXwiStYOgPNMJWzZ79Y3GoS9E4fORvIypItbdyTS081DEDM=
X-Received: by 10.31.16.30 with SMTP id g30mr19362563vki.23.1520547073789; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:11:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.57.76 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:10:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <6140B7A6-A1C7-44BC-9C65-9BE0D5E1B580@sn3rd.com> <986797a7-81b0-7874-5f39-afe83c86635b@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Artyom Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:10:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CALZ3u+ZUCDLiWkK1Z6sBG_+zZ8Ff+9cDxdkVY+msRtjyNGntKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/oOPPPiXV_8DfN2qL-QNGvf16LP8>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF101 Agenda Posted
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 22:11:17 -0000

Hi Sean, Joe,

WG also has this at its disposal:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00
Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility?
Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other.

| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: ximaera@gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
| tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58


On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
>
> Hi Sean, Joe,
>
> On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote:
>> I’ve posted the draft agendas:
>>
>> Monday:
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tls-sessb
>
> That includes:
> "
> TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min
>  - 10min draft - Russ
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/
>  - 10min discussion - Chairs
>  - 10min wrap-up - Chairs
> "
>
> Consider this as an objection to that agenda item
> being given any time. I also have some questions
> below.
>
> This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a
> very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in
> that space, despite there being quite a few fans of
> doing such work in the room that day. I don't see
> that anything has changed in the meantime.
>
> Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also
> with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in
> that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call,
> am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly
> different from what was discussed on the list so I
> see no need for any presentation nor discussion time.
>
> Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees
> being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic?
>
> And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful?
>
> As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same
> topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack
> of consensus to do anything in this space? If not,
> then what's the plan for ending this?
>
> Thanks,
> S.
>
> PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism,
> and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would
> also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to
> the WG based on that euphemism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>