Andrew, On 23/09/16 21:31, BITS Security wrote: > We do however want to raise our concern (and hopefully your > awareness) of what appears to be an unintended consequence of the > move to PFS-only choices.
I don't believe I've heard anything in this discussion so far that wasn't well-known and discussed when the WG decided to remove static RSA key transport a couple of years ago but I've not gone back and checked the list archive and meeting minutes. Given what you say above, am I right in assuming that you yourself went back and reviewed those in order to reach the conclusion that these are unintended consequences and not just the result of a well-considered analysis? If so, can you say exactly what was not considered before? If not, then maybe you could consult the archive and minutes, as that's the usual expectation in the IETF. S.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
