IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Is there a way forward after today's hum?

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 19 July 2017 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 4E9B3131B39 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 chxvC3paOFcN for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14B25131A4F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAE8BE50; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:27:20 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZrkHvJMh9Pc; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:27:17 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [31.133.148.54] (dhcp-9436.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.148.54]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 135E3BE55; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:27:17 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1500485237; bh=cedYfUZT18/D1YOT8uf1cVTyNZ82RHeKhL49i66k3x4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QHbF+VQuQbuk+PA72Z/Qf0nKqSrcymOeeJaPs+c574vRryYH1ABPXmubiRv/SMGEy rrCRgd3+VMZgyHOpzwzrHFMbNp3aJ10nq/OOo/x2jfe5wfGJRLB/oQ5Ww/R9JSH0ze dl5VB0iQTtYkvsfO8DBl12wkqw79BerAuCbZ/GAY=
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
References: <E6D7DDCD-FDE6-4784-ACE8-0F5AC8E2CEDF@vigilsec.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <1677ecdf-411d-30ac-089f-5e00e9370552@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:27:15 +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: <E6D7DDCD-FDE6-4784-ACE8-0F5AC8E2CEDF@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AHK21spORvSnKwJp0JAjeLCjKDKAgD5xh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/t8Pg-FhfKwDz4f1An8QV6wqkSFo>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Is there a way forward after today's hum?
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:27:24 -0000


On 19/07/17 18:10, Russ Housley wrote:
> The hum told us that the room was roughly evenly split.  In hind
> sight, I wish the chairs had asked a second question.  If the split
> in the room was different for the second question, then I think we
> might have learned a bit more about what people are thinking.
> 
> If a specification were available that used an extension that
> involved both the client and the server, would the working group
> adopt it, work on it, and publish it as an RFC?

I would almost certainly be opposed. There are enough generic
reasons to not break tls to go around for us all.

S.

> 
> I was listening very carefully to the comments made by people in
> line.  Clearly some people would hum for "no" to the above question,
> but it sounded like many felt that this would be a significant
> difference.  It would ensure that both server and client explicitly
> opt-in, and any party observing the handshake could see the extension
> was included or not.
> 
> Russ _______________________________________________ TLS mailing
> list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email