The document is not imposing any standards but rather provide guidelines for those implementing TLS proxies; given that proxies will continue to exist I'm not sure why there is a belief that the IETF should ignore this.
Warm regards, Nancy On 7/27/20, 5:20 AM, "OPSEC on behalf of Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: I support Stephen and oppose adoption. IMHO, this is not a technology that IETF should standardize. On 7/25/20, 10:07, "TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: I oppose adoption. While there could be some minor benefit in documenting the uses and abuses seen when mitm'ing tls, I doubt that the effort to ensure a balanced document is at all worthwhile. The current draft is too far from what it'd need to be to be adopted. Send to ISE. S. On 23/07/2020 02:30, Jen Linkova wrote: > One thing to add here: the chairs would like to hear active and > explicit support of the adoption. So please speak up if you believe > the draft is useful and the WG shall work on getting it published. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:35 AM Ron Bonica > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> >> >> This email begins a Call For Adoption on draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp. >> >> >> >> Please send comments to [email protected] by August 3, 2020. >> >> >> >> Ron >> >> >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSEC mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec > > > > -- > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
