On 10/8/15 at 9:43 PM, e...@rtfm.com (Eric Rescorla) wrote:
Yes, this is what I believe it says and what I believe the WG had consensus
on, the reasoning being that we really wished to just remove the feature
entirely. If the chairs declare consensus on something else, I will of
course edit
it to say something else.
I would love to support compression, but I don't hear any of the
proponents suggesting a way to support compression that is
immune to the the attacks that have already been fielded. With
nothing safe on the table, I think compression has to be kicked
up a layer.
It is possible to think of a parallel layer to TLS which only
does compression and offers no secrecy features. This facility
may solve the NNTP problem, but I am not qualified to say
whether it can solve that problem or not. In any case, such a
facility may have many features in common with TLS, including a
compatible initial negotiation, but it would not be a privacy
protocol. It could include integrity.
Cheers - Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Truth and love must prevail | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | over lies and hate. | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | - Vaclav Havel | Los Gatos,
CA 95032
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
