On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 13:54 +0000, Polk, Tim (Fed) wrote: > First, I do not see this as a “wiretapping discussion” based on my > reading of 2804, although others may disagree. > > Second, I believe that this discussion should go forward based on > several points: > this proposal does not involve any changes to the bits on the wire > specified in the TLS 1.3 document > this proposal offers significantly better security properties than > current practice (central distribution of static RSA keys) > alternative solutions with significantly worse security properties > are also feasible under TLS 1.3, and I would like to avoid them! > > We should be in the business of developing pragmatic, interoperable > solutions with appropriate security properties. Balancing > cryptographic security with other security requirements to achieve > such solutions should be an acceptable path, and pursuing this work > in the TLS working group gives the IETF the best opportunity to > influence these solutions.
Certainly, but that doesn't need to happen on this working group, nor protocols which implement similar solutions need to be called TLS. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
