Re: [TLS] padding bug

[Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> writes:

>Of course, this naturally raises the question of whether this document will
>be accepted by the TLS WG.

It seems to be accepted by everyone except the WG chairs, who point to:

>However, as I think recent discussion indicates, there are a number of
>proposed approaches and there isn't really consensus to adopt this particular
>one

Can you provide concrete examples of this lack of consensus?  It's already
present in deployed implementations (as I mentioned a while back, the response
of one SSL library developer was "this should have been done ten years ago").
So lets reverse this, if the WG chairs think that there are viable alternative
approaches could they please point to *currently active RFC drafts* (not an
expired six-month-old text but a current draft) with authors willing to
actively champion their approaches on the list?

If this isn't possible, can we just go ahead and adopt it?  This is a decade-
old problem with a fairly trivial fix, and yet the NSA doesn't even need to
resort to BULLRUN-style subversion if the WG chairs are determined to block
its adoption.

Peter.