Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101

Kathleen Moriarty <> Tue, 13 March 2018 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718FC12D7F4 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p_t808jRgELr for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64132124207 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d71so1498589iog.4 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vPmlEKtb0KiF0t3xd75rcsZP+dAiBblSukmGzwyu/yw=; b=vGIlusdTzn3ifclXVvpZX4AhtTrN1I0bICP2zHKF8LJWqBE0/ENDxdbpOVAwGEeaY6 ZxruNKuP5p2OE7Abt7BHukX6h+FfAPAivEj67sZ9ZjEHnd+XKX0LKia4mDQOPGPbzAuD havuXepIN3wAzXXpUx1KwvzOjGMxLDWdL3aBqcyEXGUug8bo/mnjr47xKw9w8/ioAE5O 250O0GnAEd2mNnFcxyIdMOqqxHMXxPejqQD9nn6FctS4ZjiHeRCYC/q4N7Ye9ncin5ov LKnLfsnX3a0Dj6+T7QrsKh9/fuMjBjpittcS0JgupZsLumicYvuF4ztXaiRW/VA5QXQh uqUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vPmlEKtb0KiF0t3xd75rcsZP+dAiBblSukmGzwyu/yw=; b=WAO06GUxfHg42QUR/yoiyyBGFadDg5CFCuaHsCUhKbUsKI4kNW49FFRcM+7DoWNA6/ V9HbDDVO/eAK49hVY8t3y0NQx7jen0H/17YwPRlfJWb0oJhkk4FHQp5zMBrfsXLjCv6T /16uUeZDKMXBKIIl01GxfXhGMD6D10oUgQBFJCvd429i8/nK8dG2DxFCcs9uBA3t6R2q 9auzb/FE+/9vv8zCFcIDm76sfT0cVL2KnyEKxjSa4BhdTJga0hvggB4Afrxbujvmh/yB EkOHLpT45IP6DdpbWCQLZ1HgVFy+dQhZacF/UbEXwBj5mVYcDL1pKAZsAS8ZxTMCVoYE pdig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7EZPv0dH9B9wAHPPr3NgQOTxqPs8f0kWVTca4fWa9xANZgLHn96 W3HJsNyuRxOhox/9S0nWo8A+jQBYCeVSpvkIgfs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELunNLv34cU8WKxqzzDFweSQNSz7OjSmHA4ZKLEFZAKo8ZRRK30ktakRaMYbSLi4CvQtQW3Lt4bERkLv1YKFCMI=
X-Received: by with SMTP id 34mr2036815ios.168.1520969882718; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:37:22 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Cc: "<>" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility at IETF101
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:38:05 -0000

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Melinda Shore
<> wrote:
> On 3/13/18 10:44 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
>> And then there are other options too, like another WG.  Even from
>> Stephen's list of who is in agreement with him, I've received a few
>> messages saying their text wasn't what he thinks it was.  More
>> discussion here would be good to figure out a way forward.  The chairs
>> have not agreed to allow the work to go forward, but just the
>> discussions to determine next steps.
> Part of the problem here, I think, is that it's not clear
> what's under discussion - the general problem or this
> specific draft.  I tend to think that discussions of the
> general problem will probably be unproductive and
> polarizing, and that if there is a way forward on this
> it's to have credible and specific technical proposals.
> Remember that in terms of process we don't need to have
> unanimity on a decision, but all serious technical
> objections need to be addressed and resolved.  So,
> if someone has a draft that can eventually clear that
> bar, proponents of allowing third parties to decrypt
> TLS sessions have a way forward.  (Unfortunately I
> don't think this draft can make it through).  At any
> rate I would regret (a lot) seeing discussion meander
> on over to the broader should-we-or-shouldn't-we question.

I think the chairs made it clear that it is on the specific draft and
they just have 10 minutes to present.  I believe the slides are
already posted and include the use cases within them.  We've all spent
way more than 10 in this discussion ;-)

It's up to the WG to decide and it seems a few want to discuss it,
even from the list that Stephen says are not interested.  I think it's
better to let the discussion happen.


> Melinda
> --
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> PGP fingerprint: 4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
>                  34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F


Best regards,