IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] possible new work item: not breaking TLS

Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org> Fri, 14 July 2017 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jhall@cdt.org>
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 537E712EAF0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cdt.org
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 VMHNOs8YUaTC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (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 089FA129AB2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f68so45500119vkg.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cdt.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M1BJC6yJ6s6WY1ETvDu7D6hcu9bnrpfnUkO+/uG/N/0=; b=c1OmmaYd07K2iBCX9k+GmE3NyIVQu0ryXCP8IKgkANyAJMJynZ0cuDaTKMJNhOlmeS Px9RCG9vRpExLtWSYWyk83JnYZXJab5SJKg3DFxDIDf+c4SjliXDoZn+Y8ahszC+Fq7i 6/L8RPQwdueeMW57KagfG2X3LV+chR2JW9Ttc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M1BJC6yJ6s6WY1ETvDu7D6hcu9bnrpfnUkO+/uG/N/0=; b=WqA72+pGJuxSgScnQH7v+KRaKhrPGx1Gz/hCZpSqf+H195ooTD/dw7RyHtjnZo8G+6 RyxSdSGgMvqTY1wMv8EfigqIgH4t+2B+DotOyCrQTDc1hduwODeRAe+/TYYyixaz/WSE Hzkk8KRiK+vD4+3BirPFGdOeuFLpfs2/CieXMp6CASNtI90FjE7FuDjyXLtL+RE6s0ul DOkuWeUpERnIsGPlLY/I5ZXnOjTCG7EPKuACu7RiUjV31OdWOZgMQoSJ5X1hNEmVZbDK LzaeRkXHxJX7DcLsrIBp0Aho37QZEy5g8dBI5QlC46yoYmE4ANE25ec9Uxf9FT1YyDWZ 7q5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111EkYbDgk4I6pH5jhULvAvJj15DCZSAxBY77qJ4vF02XypjnmpR VV/100zEExWVRpnrYZNaJ3LhsGuIRVxS
X-Received: by 10.31.134.208 with SMTP id i199mr5582767vkd.102.1500049150999; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f7a9beb6-ad71-89a9-22b8-05126e30170b@cs.tcd.ie> <253E111A-5B80-4477-B1EF-E0785EA202AD@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <253E111A-5B80-4477-B1EF-E0785EA202AD@ll.mit.edu>
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:19:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CABtrr-VZWAVc1o35iq7vdLxceO20hd=gT_S9nAeb6vdUQ2vTHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, tls chair <tls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141262eca953c055449684c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/w9zqQ1UDkTQf8El8bQjDAC7R1sA>
Subject: Re: [TLS] possible new work item: not breaking TLS
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:19:14 -0000

I also support both time here and a "let's put all the bad breaking TLS
ideas in one draft".

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 17:52 Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <uri@ll.mit.edu>
wrote:

> I support allocating a time slot for the arguments against the draft-green
> (and similar/related approaches).
>
> I also support documenting the above arguments, possibly in a TLS WG draft.
> --
> Regards,
> Uri Blumenthal
>
> On 7/13/17, 08:00, "TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <
> tls-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>
>     Hi again TLS WG chairs,
>
>     I've done a bit more work on the collection of arguments
>     against the latest break-TLS proposal. [1] I plan to keep
>     working on that so more input is welcome. (Corrections
>     where I've gotten stuff wrong are even more welcome.)
>
>     I'd like to again request some time on the agenda to
>     allow discussion of those points in a more structured
>     manner than will be possible during the mic-line scrum
>     that'll likely follow a sales-pitch for draft-green.
>
>     I'd also like to ask the WG if we think it'd be useful
>     to document the arguments against that and other "let's
>     break-tls" proposals we've seen in the past in an RFC.
>     If people think it would be useful, I'd be willing to
>     do work to edit such a draft, or help edit that.
>
>     Thanks,
>     S.
>
>     [1] https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: joe@cdt.org, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email