On 23/09/16 11:46, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > 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.
Sure. But their/our lives sometimes should be a bit harder to make things safer for the vast bulk of people using the networks/applications we're developing. As with everything, there's a balance needed. In this case, I think the wrong decision was reached. S. > > regards, > Nikos > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
