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

Juho Vähä-Herttua <juhovh@iki.fi> Thu, 05 December 2013 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <juhovh@iki.fi>
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 2932F1ADF7B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:31:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 aPRS-rfyTsl6 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.115]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47B91ADF65 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 04:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.171.174.213] (85-76-17-24-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.17.24]) by gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495391515C5; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:31:14 +0200 (EET)
References: <79C48EEB-9FCE-4AE5-96C0-8AA2193A9354@iki.fi> <CALR0ui+2VjvvQb1Ykfm8Tw_pAoG2UoaHQ4J_dFYHzL2V2eWR5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CALR0ui+2VjvvQb1Ykfm8Tw_pAoG2UoaHQ4J_dFYHzL2V2eWR5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F261F64B-E4C4-41C2-A22A-FB5DFAED2159@iki.fi>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Juho_V=C3=A4h=C3=A4-Herttua?= <juhovh@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:27:38 +0200
To: Alfredo Pironti <alfredo@pironti.eu>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>, Peter Gutmann <p.gutmann@auckland.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG actions (was Encrypt-then-MAC again (was padding bug))
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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 12:31:28 -0000

> On 5.12.2013, at 13.52, Alfredo Pironti <alfredo@pironti.eu> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that humming is preferred, as it provides some
> form of anonymity, while voting would quite break it. Voting/humming
> on itself is also a delicate point, as there are not eligible voters
> lists; finally, IETF (always according to my understanding) is based
> on consensus, so for example, winning by a few votes would still mean
> that there is no consensus.

This answers my question and I stand corrected, voting is probably not a good idea at IETF where main goal is the consensus on issues. However, I see people already collecting "votes" to prove support for their arguments, because a vocal minority can easily send off some people. I believe there are several people for whom TLS, although important, is not their main focus.

The main reason seems to be that I rarely see chairs taking part in discussion or steering it to the right direction. The voting suggestion was mainly a wild throw that something should be done. But nevertheless it feels like the decisions are made somewhere else than here...

> Of course, humming has the drawback of requiring some sort of physical presence.

Someone at the meeting should hum for the whole mailing list probably. But it would be better if him/her was neutral and active participant in the discussion.


Juho