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

[Bodo Moeller <[e-mail]>]

> > This topic was discussed at the TLS WG meeting in Vancouver
> > (since you declined to attend, Joe Salowey provided a brief
> > description of the two options). Your proposed approach
> > had no support in the room. You can find the minutes here:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/minutes?item=minutes-88-tls.html
>

That page looks broken (garbled UTF-8?).  Try
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-tls for a more
legible version (PDF).


> So, while there has been some support on the list, I don't
> > believe that this supports the claim that there is rough
> > consensus for this draft.
>


> Where are the opponents on the list? Anyone can hum, but I would like
> to see them
> put their names and reasons down


Decisions at meetings can't silently override mailing list consensus, but I
think Eric felt that the meeting outcome merely reflected a lack of
consensus that he'd previously already got from the list -- see his
previous summary on this list here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10004.html

(That said, Nikos' complaint seems bogus to me.  Peter's proposal seems
fine from a security point of view -- as long as clients refuse to
unnecessarily roll back to SSL 3.0, e.g. using
draft-bmoeller-tls-downgrade-scsv-01 --, the question is just if it's worth
the extra complexity given the other options.)

Bodo