On 07/07/17 18:19, Andrei Popov wrote: > Would the Informational track be an acceptable compromise? This does not have > to be a product of the TLS working group.
IMO, no, and seeking compromise is not necessarily the right approach anyway - if we did that here, then why not "compromise" and say RC4 is better than nothing? Or md5? Isn't a compromise due to this kind of broken system far far more likely than one due to rc4 or md5? S. > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > From: TLS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Salz, Rich > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 10:17 AM > To: Russ Housley <[email protected]>; Richard Barnes <[email protected]> > Cc: IETF TLS <[email protected]>; Matthew Green <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13-01 > > I think there is little doubt that the draft is technically sound. > > The question is, should the IETF "endorse" this by saying it is a product of > the TLS working group? That will certainly send a mixed message to some. As > we heard around around Seoul, not adopting might send a message to some > industries that we are not interested in helping to solve their problems. > > It is a fraught issue. > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
