On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 06:55:02 pm Nico Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:25:52PM -0700, Brian Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > In addition, they are already part of TLS, so the question would be > if we > > > > have consensus to remove them.... > > > > > > This thread is about the removal of DH_anon_*, not about raw public > keys. > > > > Yes, but you implied that you might not support keeping raw public keys. > > > > I'm not in favor of removing the anon cipher suites if we also remove > > raw public key support. This is important. I don't want the cost of > > doing anon with TLS to escalate piecemeal. All cards on the table > > please. > > This appears to just be a miscommunication. > > On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 05:38:05 pm Eric Rescorla wrote: > > This proposal is to remove Anon, thus making things strictly simpler, > since > > Raw keys can replace Anon but not the other way around. One might imagine > > a proposal to remove Raw keys, but that's not the question here and even > if > > that failed (as I expect it would) things will still be simpler if we > > remove Anon. > > The current poll is to remove anon ciphers in favor of raw public keys. > We're not considering removing raw public keys, as far as I know, and I > think most of us would be against that. Isn't this what I said? -Ekr > > > Dave >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
