Re: [TLS] Draft TLS Extension for Path Validation

Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com> Thu, 26 May 2022 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm-sec@htt-consult.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 4C633C183F8A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.857, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ff8DJ4mTUV40 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [23.123.122.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 798BAC183F86 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 May 2022 05:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703A36279D; Thu, 26 May 2022 08:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at htt-consult.com
Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z9m9z.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bW72nA219KDU; Thu, 26 May 2022 08:26:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.160.11] (unknown [192.168.160.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3A2062780; Thu, 26 May 2022 08:26:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <7de9285d-1e67-a93e-1b42-1b9db28a919d@htt-consult.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 08:26:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, Ashley Kopman <akopman@conceptsbeyond.com>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <2790C640-0841-43BC-94CA-0890ECEA672A@conceptsbeyond.com> <Yo50IQhyJM/VABlL@LK-Perkele-VII2.locald> <SY4PR01MB625129F45E7382C35CA02F39EED99@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <SY4PR01MB625129F45E7382C35CA02F39EED99@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/qETcjeTb7z9lNzZgf7cx0tZ46ME>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Draft TLS Extension for Path Validation
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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, 26 May 2022 12:27:07 -0000

Oh, and it is this community's input to see that this is well designed 
as once something is put into a plane, it tends to be there for years...

On 5/26/22 04:46, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> An indirect question on the overall premise here: Given that SCVP is
> essentially nonexistent (unless there's some niche market somewhere using it
> that I'm not aware of, which is why I didn't use an unqualified
> "nonexistent"), does it really matter much?  If an RFC falls in the forest and
> all that...
>
> Peter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls