Subject: Re: [TLS] Update on TLS 1.3 Middlebox Issues

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 06:42:15 +0900

there are a lot of us lurkers out here a bit horrified watching this wg
go off the rails.

it would help if vendors of devices which break privacy would stop
speaking for 'datacenters' and let datacenters speak for themselves.  i
have not seen any doing so.  my $dayjob has >10 medium sized datacenters
serving everything from banks to telcos to scaled cloud services.  i can
not find folk in our datacenter groups who see a need to break e2e
encryption.

if the interception proposals ensured that user is notified and able to
prevent session interception, then i would believe this.  but if they do
not, then let's face it, this is all about selling surveillance gear to
snooping enterprises and repressive regiemes where people with guns take
you away at 3am because your session was decoded.

can we please provide real end to end privacy or call this wg something
else?

randy

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 15:22:33 -0700

You seem to be responding to some other thread. As both Adam Langley and I
mentioned, none of the changes that anyone is investigating for reducing
middlebox-induced breakage affect the cryptographic properties of TLS.

-Ekr

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:32:48 +0100

On 08/10/17 23:22, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> You seem to be responding to some other thread. 

Yep. I changed the subject line.

Randy's substantive message however is crystal clear. And is
one that WG participants ought take to heart IMO. Pretending
that some changes to TLS would magically be limited in scope
to so-called "data centres" is BS. I'm really really puzzled
that some otherwise sensible folks appear unable to see that.

S

> As both Adam Langley and I

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:35:32 +0000

+1 to Stephen.

Regards,
Uri

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 8, 2017, at 18:34, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 07:39:21 +0900

> middlebox-induced breakage affect the cryptographic properties of TLS.

my apologies.  i can only plead low caffeine (6:45 am tokyo time).

the proper threads would have been
  draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13
  draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility
  etc etc etc

it's getting to be that you can smell a red herring by the word
'datacenter' when it's really vendors of surveillance gear and three
letter agencies.

> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
                         ^^^^^^^  that's your clock, not mine :)
>> have not seen any doing so.  my $dayjob has>10 medium sized datacenters

randy

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 23:22:26 +0000

It would be great if the IETF had a mechanism to put something on-hold.  To repeat what I said at ’99, we need to put this on hold for a year or two after TLS 1.3 is done.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:33:10 +0100

I did a bit of an update to [1].

As before PRs are welcome and I (still) wonder if the
WG would benefit from documenting bits of this stuff
as a work item to save time and repetition in future.

S.

[1] https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil