Re: [TLS] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-02 Thread Sean Turner
On Sep 01, 2015, at 12:49, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > As Alissa, I was wondering why it wasn’t easier to fix the one > implementation instead. > > > Because it's widely fielded, and browsers don't know in advance what > kind of server they are talking to. The one thing I’ll add in addition to w

[TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Julien ÉLIE
Hi all, Since the publication of RFC 7465 "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites", there has been a discrepancy with the requirements of Section 5 of RFC 4642 "Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)": NNTP client and server implementations MUST implement t

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Salz, Rich
> Maybe a new RFC obsoleting RFC 4642 (which could at the same time > become a standard instead of a proposed standard)? Is there any reason why NNTP cannot just use the UTA specifications? (It's been awhile since I "dabbled" in NNTP :) /r$ -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 04:39:59PM +0200, Julien ?LIE wrote: > Since the publication of RFC 7465 "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites", there has > been a discrepancy with the requirements of Section 5 of RFC 4642 "Using > Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)": > >

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Julien ÉLIE
Hi Viktor, It would be best if NNTP did not specify MTI TLS ciphersuites and left that to the relevant TLS specifications. Instead, it would be more useful to specify a minimum TLS protocol version, and require each side to support the MTI ciphers for each supported protocol version. OK thank

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Eric Rescorla
Note: RFC 4642 does not seem to have been a work product of the TLS WG, so you probably want to raise this in UTA. -Ekr On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > Maybe a new RFC obsoleting RFC 4642 (which could at the same time > > become a standard instead of a proposed standard)?

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Julien ÉLIE
Hi Rich, Maybe a new RFC obsoleting RFC 4642 (which could at the same time become a standard instead of a proposed standard)? Is there any reason why NNTP cannot just use the UTA specifications? When you speak about the UTA specifications, is it RFC 7525 "Recommendations for Secure Use of T

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:13:08PM +0200, Julien ?LIE wrote: > >AFAIK, NNTP peering relationships are fairly static, and mandatory > >TLS seems like the way to go in that case. But if NNTP servers > >contact other servers "on the fly", then opportunistic TLS may > >be appropriate and one might ev

Re: [TLS] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-02 Thread Sean Turner
On Sep 02, 2015, at 02:26, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: No Objection >> >> -- >> COMME

Re: [TLS] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-02 Thread Alissa Cooper
> On Sep 2, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > > On Sep 02, 2015, at 02:26, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> >>> On Aug 31, 2015, at 11:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: No Objection >>> >>> --

Re: [TLS] DSA support in TLS 1.3.

2015-09-02 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:58:33PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: > There is a third option: you don't get to use TLS 1.3 until the > government requirements are updated. > > I'm fine with that. I think they already have, with NSA seemingly saying RSA3k is OK for up to TOP SECRET (unless I misundersto

[TLS] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-02 Thread Ben Campbell
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

2015-09-02 Thread Sean Turner
On Sep 02, 2015, at 11:20, Julien ÉLIE wrote: > Hi Rich, > >>> Maybe a new RFC obsoleting RFC 4642 (which could at the same time >>> become a standard instead of a proposed standard)? >> >> Is there any reason why NNTP cannot just use the UTA specifications? > > When you speak about the UTA sp

Re: [TLS] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-02 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 06:28:13PM -0700, Ben Campbell wrote: > -- 6: > I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "permanently assign the early > code point for the padding extension in its ExtensionType registry". > Does this mean that an early allocation was done for this? If so, it > seems lik

[TLS] '15 TLS Fall Interim Logistics

2015-09-02 Thread Sean Turner
All, Andrei has graciously offered to host us at Microsoft in Redmond, WA [0]. We’re going to need a list of those that plan to attend in person in order to make sure there’s a badge for you to get into the buildings. Please fill out the following doodle poll if you plan to attend in person: