On 2/18/15 10:19 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
On 2/18/15 8:34 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really can't abide by the abdication in Section 5.2.
Abdication is an awfully strong word.
Getting a cert is
hard. Running reasonably recent software and configuring it properly is
not. The possibility that a connection will not be authenticated is no
excuse for using bad versions of TLS or using insecure ciphersuites.
I appreciate that normally deference to WG consensus is appropriate, but
this is a recommendation that could be actively harmful to the Internet
by encouraging the continued use of broken code.
I think the document, then, does not provide clear enough text.
I do not think we intended to actively recommend that anyone run
broken code, use outdated versions of TLS, use insecure ciphersuites,
etc. However, we are saying that this document was not written
specifically to cover unauthenticated TLS usages because that was a
point of strong contention in the WG and we were not able to reach
consensus. The thread beginning here is illustrative:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/current/msg00625.html
If you are insisting that this document be remanded to the WG with
instructions that it reach consensus one way or the other, then please
let us know.
The rest I'm happy for the editors/chairs/others to take up, but let me
take on this one:
We will discuss this on the call tomorrow. Stephen and Kathleen and I
are working on (well, really, Stephen produced a first draft a month ago
and I dawdled on my edit, but I hope we are close to getting out the
door) a statement to the community regarding discussions of OS
considerations. There are a load of reasons that in an OS (and
potentially other unauthenticated) context you would violate some of the
recommendations in this document. As our note will say, it is incredibly
hard (I would say near impossible) to reasonably convey what the "right"
approach is when talking about OS. Until we are able to get better
community consensus on this topic and how to explain it in documents, I
think (and I believe the WG agrees) that the right thing to say is,
"This document isn't talking about OS" and leave it at that, which is
what the document now says.
I'll probably share the draft text we've been working on with Richard.
Perhaps Stephen and I will simply convince him. Perhaps he will convince
us. But let's leave this topic for the telechat tomorrow, and we'll
circle back to the WG if there's an issue to address.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
