Re: [TLS] WG actions (was Encrypt-then-MAC again (was padding bug))

Sean Turner <> Thu, 05 December 2013 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3BD1ADFD0 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:44:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.567
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6m0ebsY861dc for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F171ADEBF for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 06:44:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5007) id 6FFB1F21A5563; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:44:21 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E20F21A5535 for <>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:44:21 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [] (port=60928 by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1VoaAa-0004e4-O8 for; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:49 -0600
From: Sean Turner <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02BBBD41-263A-49C3-B6BE-A89C1B051601"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:44:45 +0000
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-Sender: ( []:60928
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: ZG9tbWdyNDg7ZG9tbWdyNDg7Z2F0b3IzMjg2Lmhvc3RnYXRvci5jb20=
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG actions (was Encrypt-then-MAC again (was padding bug))
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 14:44:56 -0000

I'm the responsible AD for this group, so let me try to clarify.

Our objective is to have rough consensus on a way forward.  When
there wasn’t consensus on the mailing list (I agreed with the summary
posted) it is often useful to try to resolve that F2F.  In this case, the
WG met and I made it crystal clear that doing nothing is not an option
here.  Hums were taken and there was rough consensus of the people
in the room for the AEAD approach (the minutes reflect this).  But, there
are now obviously enough people who disagree on the mailing list and we
don't yet have a draft for the alternative that the F2F meeting preferred.
This is why the chairs haven't called consensus, though
I wish they had reported this back more clearly to the mailing list.

I think this has dragged on too long and I'll be meeting with the
chairs to get them to define a process for selecting a way forward.
That should happen this week and they should send something to
the list next week.  I want to see this draft in IETF LC before the
IETF 89 in March.


On Dec 05, 2013, at 11:59, Bodo Moeller <> wrote:

> As I wrote earlier, I think that Eric thought that result from humming reflected a lack of consensus previous seen on the mailing list, as previously summarized by him here:
> Had there been consensus on the mailing list already, that couldn't have been silently overruled at the meeting.  Specifically, RFC 2418 requires that "Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list, or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list."  In-person meetings exist to facilitate discussion, but they're not where decisions are finalized.
> Bodo
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list