Hiya, Just to be clear: I'm still waiting for the chairs and/or AD to explain how the proposed discussion of this draft is consistent with IETF processes, given the results of the discussion in Prague (a very clear lack of consensus to even work on this topic), and the discussion of the -00 version of this late last year. IOW, I don't consider my objection has been answered.
In case people haven't got all the mails from last year at the front of their minds, I went through them for you and have provided links and selected quotes below. Yes, the quotes are selected but I think do indicate that the opposition to these ideas is as before. And there were also the usual voices in support of weakening TLS in this manner as well - a read of the thread clearly indicates to me that discussion of this draft in London will, as before, be a divisive waste of time and energy. Chairs: Please drop the agenda item, or explain how any of this fits our process, because I'm just not getting it. Thanks, Stephen. me, "IMO the WG shouldn't touch this terrible proposal with a bargepole." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24493.html Randy Bush: "there are a lot of us lurkers out here a bit horrified watching this wg go off the rails." (Different thread, but same topic) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24539.html Uri Blumenthal: "+1 to Stephen" https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24542.html Rich Salz: "put this on hold for a year or two after TLS 1.3 is done" https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24544.html Ion Larranaga Azcue, "I really don't feel confortable with the approach taken in this draft." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24562.html Hubert Kario: "to be clear: me too" (replying about hating the idea) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24578.html Rich Salz: "I am opposed to the basic concept of injecting a third-party into the E2E TLS process." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24585.html Florian Weimer: "I don't understand why this complicated approach is needed." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24607.html Ben Kaduk: "I do not see any potential for a workable solution." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24620.html Uri Blumenthal: "why do we spend time discussing this draft?" https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24639.html Christian Huitema: "Maybe they have found ways to manage their applications and servers without breaking TLS..." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24643.html Ted Lemon: "I think we should stop." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24649.html Andrei Popov: "deploying a weakened configuration of TLS 1.3 (without PFS) would not meet the intent of those future mandates/requirements." (On "industry need") https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24656.html Ben Kaduk: "The time I am spending on this thread is time that I am not able to spend improving the TLS 1.3 document." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24660.html Dave Garrett: "Please, let's just let this mess die. " https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24667.html Uri Blumenthal "I'm against weakening the protocol, since there are other ways to accomplish the perlustrator's mission" https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24670.html Yeah, I had to look it up too:-) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/perlustrator Adam Caudill: "To be honest, I’m rather surprised that this group continues to spend time on this." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24712.html Tony Arcieri, "Having worked (and presently working) for more than one company of this nature, in the payments business no less, I would like to restate that it's incredibly disingenuous to cite the need for self-MitM capability as an "industry" concern." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24715.html Colm MacCárthaigh: "I don't have too strong an interest in this thread, it's not going anywhere, and I don't mind that." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24720.html Peter Saint-Andre: "+1 to Stephen's request." (for chairs to close down the discussion) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24734.html Cas Cremers: " I think such a mechanism should not be part of the TLS 1.3 standard." https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24885.html Karthikeyan Bhargavan: "I really don’t recommend any change to the TLS 1.3 design to accomplish any of this" https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24903.html
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls