On Fri 2017-07-07 16:04:20 -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> In some industries, there are regulatory requirements that cannot be
> met without access to the plaintext.
This is surely true, but it's not clear to me that any regulator
requires access to the plaintext *from direct network capture*.
Cou
On Sat 2017-07-15 05:58:31 +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Unless I missed the reply, I did not see any answer to my question as
> to why it must be opt-in. Do we think evildoers will tell the truth
> about what they are doing?
Because presumably the people who do *not* want to do evil want to avoid
s
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Unless I missed the reply, I did not see any answer to my question as to why
> it must be opt-in. Do we think evildoers will tell the truth about what
> they are doing?
Opt-in is choice. Choice for a consumer is usually a good thing.
Sunlight
Unless I missed the reply, I did not see any answer to my question as to why it
must be opt-in. Do we think evildoers will tell the truth about what they are
doing?
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:01, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
>> It might make sense to kick it over to ops for a discussion with people
>> whose meat and potatoes is monitoring, management, and
>> measurement.
>
>
> As someone who is ops-focused, I t
The Secretariat is going to put out a revised IETF agenda tomorrow. I suspect
we’ll be in the room that was allocated to RTCweb.
spt
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 16:35, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
> Sean, can you let us know what room the new session will be in when
> you know? (Not on the agenda.)
Hi Roland,
It sounds like you misread my messages and should read them in context of TLS
1.3 and the draft using DH static keys proposed to help with monitoring.
Best regards,
Kathleen
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>> On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:01, Mel
Sean, can you let us know what room the new session will be in when
you know? (Not on the agenda.)
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:53, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> And by the
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:53, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
> wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>> And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts.
>
> My apology. We’re in agreement then.
No worries I should have been more explicit.
spt
_
On Jul 14, 2017, at 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts.
My apology. We’re in agreement then.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
And by the important business I was referring to the TLS and DTLS drafts.
spt
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:22, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
> wrote:
>
> I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping
> presentation.
>
> I would not call the discussed draft "the im
> ... the IESG could also decline to allow such a WG item to
> get published.
That’s what I’d expect and hope for.
> Better skip the Q/A at the WG meeting -- it makes no difference as to
> determining consensus,
+1
> and no one needs the other side screaming bloody
> murder and judging one
It seems to me that all the use cases you just described require the
*client* to have a static key, since the client is the thing that the
operator controls. If the client uses an unknown key, is malware or
unauthorized.
On Jul 14, 2017 20:42, "Roland Dobbins" wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:01, M
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:10:47PM +0200, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I have two working groups already in the monday slot. I doubt I'm unique
> in this. It seems like you should put the important business in the slot
> that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot.
> It's hard to
On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:01, Melinda Shore wrote:
It might make sense to kick it over to ops for a discussion with
people whose meat and potatoes is monitoring, management, and
measurement.
As someone who is ops-focused, I think this is an excellent suggestion!
There have been several assertions
> As Stephen points out, it looks like we've allocated 80 minutes to the topic
> of how to remove the forward secrecy guarantees that we've struggled for over
> a year to introduce. That's more than we've allocated for the "main point of
> the TLS WG", which are only 65 minutes combined.
+1. R
On 7/14/17 6:45 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> On 14 Jul 2017, at 18:35, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>> Just want to +1 the notion that this should be opt-in for both sides and in
>> an extension!
> It’s a good notion, but “we have to change one side” usually wins over “we
> have to change both sides”
S
On Fri 2017-07-14 10:51:14 -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
> The Secretariat has allocated us the Monday @ 13:30-15:30 slot.
hm, that's disappointing for those of us who had other things we'd
planned on going to already in that slot. :/ But it's not on the agenda
yet, so maybe it has been changed alrea
I will be perfectly happy not allocating any time at all for the wiretapping
presentation.
I would not call the discussed draft "the important business" - for me it's
anything but that.
Regards,
Uri
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 13:11, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> I have two working gr
Except when it's the issue of mutual consent (rather than of a merely technical
change).
Otherwise - "we have to change one side" might turn into "have you pay me
$50,000 every month, your opt-in isn't necessary". :-)
Regards,
Uri
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:45, Yoav Nir wro
I have two working groups already in the monday slot. I doubt I'm unique
in this. It seems like you should put the important business in the slot
that was previously scheduled, and the overflow into the Monday slot.
It's hard to imagine how a discussion of the wiretapping thing could be
anythin
> On 14 Jul 2017, at 18:35, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
> Just want to +1 the notion that this should be opt-in for both sides and in
> an extension!
It’s a good notion, but “we have to change one side” usually wins over “we have
to change both sides”
signature.asc
Description: Message s
I also support both time here and a "let's put all the bad breaking TLS
ideas in one draft".
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 17:52 Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
wrote:
> I support allocating a time slot for the arguments against the draft-green
> (and similar/related approaches).
>
> I also support doc
Just want to +1 the notion that this should be opt-in for both sides and in
an extension!
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 23:16 Nick Sullivan
wrote:
> Putting questions of whether or not this belongs as a working group
> document, I think there are some necessary requirements for
> intra-datacenter passi
+1
Current agenda does look backwards. IMHO, do as Stephen suggested.
Regards,
Uri
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:10, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
>> On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Please let us know your thoughts.
>
> 80 minutes for wiretapping is too much.
Hiya,
On 14/07/17 15:51, Sean Turner wrote:
> Please let us know your thoughts.
80 minutes for wiretapping is too much. Zero would
be better. But if not...
I'd suggest: 10 minutes for draft-green, 10 minutes
to describe issues with that (i.e. the slot for which
I continue to ask) and then 10 m
The chairs have requested an additional time on the IETF agenda for TLS. The
Secretariat has allocated us the Monday @ 13:30-15:30 slot. Because the main
point of the TLS WG are the TLS and DTLS drafts and the schedule was already
announced, we want to leave those presentations on Wednesday.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On 14 July 2017 at 01:08, Kathleen Moriarty
> wrote:
>> It sounds like for malware, we could do something to better document
>> your security options as well as monitoring. While the documentation
>> is there for ke
28 matches
Mail list logo
