Hi Darin, I just asked for clarification whether it's on a TLS WG agenda for London. I'm not quite sure this is a right thread to discuss the contents of that draft. (In fact, I'm pretty sire it isn't.)
| Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: xima...@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Darin Pettis <dpp.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > Artyom, > Thanks for mentioning the ID and you are right that draft Fenter is the > supporting problem description. > > The reason it was written was to help folks understand why legitimate > internal out-of-band decryption is still needed on data once it reaches its > destination and that there isn’t a viable alternative that we are aware of. > Especially not in-line MitM decryption. It just doesn’t scale. The draft > lists the legitimate internal requirements and speaks to the facts around > some of the suggestions that have been offered. > > It’s a good read and we are happy to answer questions in advance as needed. > > Darin > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:11 PM Artyom Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi Sean, Joe, >> >> WG also has this at its disposal: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fenter-tls-decryption-00 >> Will that be discussed along with draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility? >> Those two seem to be rather connected/dependant on each other. >> >> | Artyom Gavrichenkov >> | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 >> | mailto: xima...@gmail.com >> | fb: ximaera >> | telegram: xima_era >> | skype: xima_era >> | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Stephen Farrell >> <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Sean, Joe, >> > >> > On 08/03/18 16:20, Sean Turner wrote: >> >> I’ve posted the draft agendas: >> >> >> >> Monday: >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/agenda-101-tls-sessb >> > >> > That includes: >> > " >> > TLS Vizability - Russ & Chairs - 30min >> > - 10min draft - Russ >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility/ >> > - 10min discussion - Chairs >> > - 10min wrap-up - Chairs >> > " >> > >> > Consider this as an objection to that agenda item >> > being given any time. I also have some questions >> > below. >> > >> > This topic was discussed at length in Prague with a >> > very clear lack of consensus to consider any work in >> > that space, despite there being quite a few fans of >> > doing such work in the room that day. I don't see >> > that anything has changed in the meantime. >> > >> > Russ' draft was discussed on the list last year, also >> > with (ISTM) no consensus at all to do any work in >> > that space. (While you didn't make a consensus call, >> > am I wrong?) The -01 version is not significantly >> > different from what was discussed on the list so I >> > see no need for any presentation nor discussion time. >> > >> > Given the above, on what basis are meeting attendees >> > being asked to waste yet more f2f time on this topic? >> > >> > And why is another want-it/hate-it exercise useful? >> > >> > As chairs, are you going to continually allow the same >> > topic to be raised, in the face of a very clear lack >> > of consensus to do anything in this space? If not, >> > then what's the plan for ending this? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > S. >> > >> > PS: I also strongly object to the "visibility" euphemism, >> > and while that's partly a comment on the draft, it would >> > also IMO be a significant error to pose any questions to >> > the WG based on that euphemism. >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > TLS mailing list >> > TLS@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
