Re: [TLS] [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile

2022-11-28 Thread Martin Thomson
I personally have no intention of making this PS (or to otherwise water down 
recommendations against it).

I do have some interest in doing what can be done to make this less of a 
hazard.  You will see that I took John's suggest to more directly proscribe its 
use: https://github.com/martinthomson/sslkeylogfile/pull/1

One benefit of moving this under IETF change control is that we can have those 
conversations about how to manage this better.  To Stephen's point, the idea 
that you might negotiate an extension when this is enabled is an interesting 
one.  I don't think that it needs to be large in order to have the intended 
effect (if the intended effect is punitive in nature, then that creates certain 
disincentives around compliance).  There are many cases where I think it would 
be beneficial to have the presence of this known to both entities.  The 
challenge of course is that this is primarily of benefit to the client only - 
the server cannot unilaterally signal that it has this machinery engaged.

(Another thing to note is that the qlog work in the QUIC working group has 
lesser, but broadly similar properties.  It would be good to share what we 
learn from this exercise.)

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 03:22, Andrei Popov wrote:
> Does an Informational draft require WG adoption? If the goal isn't to 
> switch to the Standards track, I have no concerns.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrei
>
> -Original Message-
> From: TLS  On Behalf Of Ilari Liusvaara
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:11 AM
> To: TLS List 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of 
> draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:02:20PM +, Andrei Popov wrote:
>> 
>> I oppose adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. The stated goal was 
>> to find a permanent, discoverable location for this document, other 
>> than NSS project's repository. Perhaps it's fine to create an RFC for 
>> this purpose, but then I'd argue that it should be an Informational 
>> RFC.
>
> The I-D has: "Intended status: Informational" (for some reason the 
> datatracker is unable to determine this).
>
>
>
> -Ilari
>
> ___
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftls=05%7C01%7CAndrei.Popov%40microsoft.com%7C4d4695c5433c4186eed608dad17465a9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638052595136932049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=0WqfX2eGL7cXMwCbYEOegEEnpRNXtdyFcDC3QBjMOe8%3D=0
>
> ___
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls


Re: [TLS] [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile

2022-11-28 Thread Andrei Popov
> If there were some technical means to ensure that this was less likely to be 
> abused, I'd like it more.
Perhaps require key update prior to secrets export

-Original Message-
From: TLS  On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Sean Turner ; TLS List 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile


I'm ok with adoption so long as we include sufficient caveats along the way 
(and then add more caveats just in case:-)

If there were some technical means to ensure that this was less likely to be 
abused, I'd like it more. (Could we e.g. require inclusion of a TLS extension 
that has a 100kB cat-picture payload?)

S.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls


Re: [TLS] [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile

2022-11-28 Thread Andrei Popov
Does an Informational draft require WG adoption? If the goal isn't to switch to 
the Standards track, I have no concerns.

Cheers,

Andrei

-Original Message-
From: TLS  On Behalf Of Ilari Liusvaara
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:11 AM
To: TLS List 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:02:20PM +, Andrei Popov wrote:
> 
> I oppose adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. The stated goal was 
> to find a permanent, discoverable location for this document, other 
> than NSS project's repository. Perhaps it's fine to create an RFC for 
> this purpose, but then I'd argue that it should be an Informational 
> RFC.

The I-D has: "Intended status: Informational" (for some reason the datatracker 
is unable to determine this).



-Ilari

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftls=05%7C01%7CAndrei.Popov%40microsoft.com%7C4d4695c5433c4186eed608dad17465a9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638052595136932049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=0WqfX2eGL7cXMwCbYEOegEEnpRNXtdyFcDC3QBjMOe8%3D=0

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls