IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on MTI Algorithms

Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com> Wed, 01 April 2015 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240F91A909F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4 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, GB_I_LETTER=-2, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 WKvc3rtf18XJ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (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 AD4D31A90C1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 13:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgeb100 with SMTP id b100so12442851qge.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=LsoEk5peXk4fAk8Tw5xOtdaZAEZPsmaAWoVYRweRVmA=; b=Ir3H/asRjZNRLCTWJfVX7c6aGEL0U0LGUBRT51zGYkqzxnUMgXBnMXlJVby1QhAMzU RM+Mj2U0Hg9sLV0FnqWCAqAVcSePNILx1ZMTLKCi1g/eyiR2jPnOjVW3TpqE8gDqf6iE EkIA675hefFGlwzyslRvJKAltm2xKI7aJ7mshL7HZWljme69POftcFZ+xlm95JEfE7jQ WlR2LjifYW9hCOVQIGjiMv0v/LA+8tM4FAp8xw1L37PrqO0NM6BpYVkz9LYDrCAlMuKg X+xGRA6O2/LDgGfxmVIZuLD03MQVKgtDe1Ts1kikqh9CoqTBU31jg7Z3xDXY8/5b1rBk SnSg==
X-Received: by 10.55.42.39 with SMTP id q39mr90232378qkh.99.1427919526919; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dave-laptop.localnet (pool-96-245-254-195.phlapa.fios.verizon.net. [96.245.254.195]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b52sm2007747qgb.16.2015.04.01.13.18.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2015 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:18:45 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-73-generic-pae; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <CAOgPGoBk+E=cNV1ufBaQ0n7=CJQ34zukPixKCEdpmMLBX=Kg_w@mail.gmail.com> <20150401194758.GA13326@roeckx.be>
In-Reply-To: <20150401194758.GA13326@roeckx.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201504011618.45618.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/u3OjRazOnVU4ZgcGls7LaJgJhUM>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on MTI Algorithms
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 01 Apr 2015 20:18:59 -0000

On Wednesday, April 01, 2015 03:47:58 pm Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 11:12:19AM -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> > Keep in mind that mandatory to implement (MTI) is not mandatory to use and
> > that it is expected that there will be profiles for specific environments.
> 
> I'm confused why we need a mandatory to implement when profiles
> might decide to use something different.

When defining a protocol, it should at least be written in a way that is guaranteed to work if followed to the letter.

At minimum, when an implementor that uses something else gets an interoperability failure, we can say "I told you so" and point to the fact that compliant implementations can easily be configured in a way that will work.


Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email