Hi Sean, Joe,
WG also has this at its disposal:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00
Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility?
Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other.
| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5
Hi Darin,
I just asked for clarification whether it's on a TLS WG agenda for London.
I'm not quite sure this is a right thread to discuss the contents of that draft.
(In fact, I'm pretty sire it isn't.)
| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08
Hi Nalini,
вт, 13 мар. 2018 г., 11:59 nalini elkins :
> The TLS working group has been concentrating on making the Internet secure
> for the individual user.We feel that there is also an underlying
> motivation to help the underdog and protect the political dissident.
>
This isn't about diss
Hi Eric,
The author probably refers to a case where an infosec dept of an enterprise
will not just disable TLSv1.3 on the servers, but will also set up some
deep-juju DPI for filtering v1.3 in transit to make sure no one will enable
v1.3 accidentally somewhere.
As those DPI solutions are often of
parent for anyone?
вт, 13 мар. 2018 г., 13:39 Sean Turner :
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2018, at 16:31, Artyom Gavrichenkov
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nalini,
> >
> > вт, 13 мар. 2018 г., 11:59 nalini elkins :
> > The TLS working group has been concentrating on making th
e is not addressed properly in draft-fenter.
Because simply stating that "typically, only select groups within an
organization [are able to see decrypted traffic]" doesn't seem enough.
(this is just a single example of an issue with that draft)
| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97
13 Mar. 2018 г., 18:38 Ted Lemon :
> One strategy that's very effective for overcoming resistance to bad ideas
> is to keep pushing the idea until nobody who's resisting it can afford to
> continue doing so.
>
There's a name for that tactics, it's called "consensus by exhaustion". (On
the recent
l my daughter, "if you
> hear hoof beats, it is likely not a zebra, it is a horse".
>
> The simple explanation is that people think they will have serious issues
> with TLS1.3 and actually, TLS1.2 when it is DH only.
>
> Nalini
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:45 P
14 Mar. 2018 г., 22:32 Ralph Droms :
>
> On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Artyom Gavrichenkov
> wrote:
>
> 13 Mar. 2018 г., 18:38 Ted Lemon :
>
>> One strategy that's very effective for overcoming resistance to bad ideas
>> is to keep pushing the idea until nobo
Are we going to discuss draft-fenter ad hoc, or we'll start a new thread
dedicated to that? Because I strongly believe I also have some suggestions
for that draft.
ср, 14 мар. 2018 г., 23:30 Salz, Rich :
> Some on this list have said that they need to break into TLS in order to
> protect customer
ot in any way different from
just an arbitrary ISP.
I support removal of this case, it's virtually impossible to protect
against it.
| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: xima...@gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
I support the adoption.
| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: xima...@gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
| tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 8:33 PM Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At the TLS@IETF102 s
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:42 PM Kathleen Moriarty
wrote:
> Stephen and I posted the draft below to see if the TLS working group
> is ready to take steps to deprecate TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1. There has
> been a recent drop off in usage for web applications due to the PCI
> Council recommendation to mov
Good day!
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 3:01 AM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> 1. The bit you quote above is incomplete
Yep, but the rest of the paragraph just outlines *recommendations*
(or, even better, 'encouragements') while the draft states that "PCI
Council [is] deprecating TLSv1.0 and TLSv1.1 by June
14 matches
Mail list logo
