Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

On 23/10/17 00:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Steve Fenter <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> I have been saying to anyone who will listen that the IETF needs a
>> private forum for enterprises, to enable them to come forward and
>> discuss their real requirements. Without this input the IETF is
>> trying to architect and engineer solutions without knowing the
>> complete set of requirements, at least on the enterprise side.
>> This results in sub-optimal design decisions (from an enterprise
>> perspective), which in this case will break mission critical
>> enterprise monitoring and troubleshooting systems.
> 
> The reason we don't have that is that designing secure protocols in
> secret isn't a trustworthy approach.   Of course, you can always get
> together privately.

Well, to be fair, that ask - for (literally!) secret handshakes
does explain one part of this debacle that has puzzled me so far.
We've seen the following interactions:

snooping-proponents: "we need snooping, because <foo>"
others: "that has all sorts of bad side-effects, e.g. A,B,C..."
...
...silence from snooping proponents...

The ask for secrecy I think demonstrates that the silence in
response to explanations of derived demonstrable damage is not
due to a lack of understanding, but must be down to caring
only about one's own "constituency" and not at all about the
Internet more broadly.

I think I now understand some of this better (but deplore it
more), but am left more puzzled as to the what it was that
inspired draft-rehired authors.

S.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>