On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 09:05 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 22/09/16 19:36, Yuhong Bao wrote: > > > > This also reminds me of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?i > > d=1188657 > > Yuk. Prioritising the needs of those debugging networks > over the maybe 5-6 orders of magnitude more folks using > them is ass-backwards IMO. That result looks to me like > a very bad decision if I'm following it correctly.
That's a very different concern than the one asked by BITS security, and is IMO a very valid one. Running any protocol under TLS wouldn't mean that debugging is very hard or impossible for the one running the protocol. Administrators debug and trace protocols every day to figure out failures (that's why we have advanced tools like wireshark). Making it hard for them to use these tools isn't increasing security; it is only making their life harder. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
