Hiya, Just to be clear: I'm still waiting for the chairs and/or AD to explain how the proposed discussion of this draft is consistent with IETF processes, given the results of the discussion in Prague (a very clear lack of consensus to even work on this topic), and the discussion of the -00 version of this late last year. IOW, I don't consider my objection has been answered.
In case people haven't got all the mails from last year
at the front of their minds, I went through them for you
and have provided links and selected quotes below. Yes,
the quotes are selected but I think do indicate that the
opposition to these ideas is as before. And there were
also the usual voices in support of weakening TLS in this
manner as well - a read of the thread clearly indicates
to me that discussion of this draft in London will, as
before, be a divisive waste of time and energy.
Chairs: Please drop the agenda item, or explain how any
of this fits our process, because I'm just not getting
it.
Thanks,
Stephen.
me, "IMO the WG shouldn't touch this terrible proposal with a
bargepole."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24493.html
Randy Bush: "there are a lot of us lurkers out here a bit horrified
watching this wg go off the rails." (Different thread, but same topic)
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24539.html
Uri Blumenthal: "+1 to Stephen"
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24542.html
Rich Salz: "put this on hold for a year or two after TLS 1.3 is done"
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24544.html
Ion Larranaga Azcue, "I really don't feel confortable with the approach
taken in this draft."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24562.html
Hubert Kario: "to be clear: me too" (replying about hating the idea)
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24578.html
Rich Salz: "I am opposed to the basic concept of injecting a third-party
into the E2E TLS process."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24585.html
Florian Weimer: "I don't understand why this complicated approach is
needed."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24607.html
Ben Kaduk: "I do not see any potential for a workable solution."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24620.html
Uri Blumenthal: "why do we spend time discussing this draft?"
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24639.html
Christian Huitema: "Maybe they have found ways to manage their
applications and servers without breaking TLS..."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24643.html
Ted Lemon: "I think we should stop."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24649.html
Andrei Popov: "deploying a weakened configuration of TLS 1.3 (without
PFS) would not meet the intent of those future mandates/requirements."
(On "industry need")
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24656.html
Ben Kaduk: "The time I am spending on this thread is time that I am not
able to spend improving the TLS 1.3 document."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24660.html
Dave Garrett: "Please, let's just let this mess die. "
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24667.html
Uri Blumenthal "I'm against weakening the protocol, since there are
other ways to accomplish the perlustrator's mission"
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24670.html
Yeah, I had to look it up too:-)
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/perlustrator
Adam Caudill: "To be honest, I’m rather surprised that this group
continues to spend time on this."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24712.html
Tony Arcieri, "Having worked (and presently working) for more than one
company of this nature, in the payments business no less, I would like
to restate that it's incredibly disingenuous to cite the need for
self-MitM capability as an "industry" concern."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24715.html
Colm MacCárthaigh: "I don't have too strong an interest in this thread,
it's not going anywhere, and I don't mind that."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24720.html
Peter Saint-Andre: "+1 to Stephen's request." (for chairs to close down
the discussion)
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24734.html
Cas Cremers: " I think such a mechanism should not be part of the TLS
1.3 standard."
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24885.html
Karthikeyan Bhargavan: "I really don’t recommend any change to the TLS
1.3 design to accomplish any of this"
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24903.html
0x7B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
