On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m assuming that the server generates private keys and saves them to a file > along with the time period that they were used, and another machine in a > different part of the network records traffic. It’s not so much that the > clocks need to be accurate, as that they need to be synchronized, and there > will still be some misalignment because of (variable) latency. > > I guess we are making guesses about systems that haven’t been written yet.
Addressing a few messages in one: I didn't intend that this MUST NOT just be a "MUST NOT (but we know you will)". I agree they're pretty useless. Rather I want this to be checked in some clients and in tools like SSLLabs. I have some faith that such measures will work to push an ecosystem towards correctness. I don't expect that those who want to intercept TLS connections will see a MUST NOT and go do something else. Rather I think they should understand that TLS isn't supposed to be intercepted and, if they want to do that, then they're going to be breaking the spec in places. I think they're going to do that no matter what we do so I want to ensure that these "interceptable" implementations don't inadvertently proliferate. (Because if everything Just Works when you accidentally copy such a config to your frontend server, then it'll happen.) Cheers AGL _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
