The document is not imposing any standards but rather provide guidelines for
those implementing TLS proxies; given that proxies will continue to exist I'm
not sure why there is a belief that the IETF should ignore this.
Warm regards, Nancy
On 7/27/20, 5:20 AM, "OPSEC on behalf of Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL"
<opsec-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of u...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
I support Stephen and oppose adoption. IMHO, this is not a technology that
IETF should standardize.
On 7/25/20, 10:07, "TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <tls-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
I oppose adoption. While there could be some minor benefit
in documenting the uses and abuses seen when mitm'ing tls,
I doubt that the effort to ensure a balanced document is at
all worthwhile. The current draft is too far from what it'd
need to be to be adopted.
Send to ISE.
S.
On 23/07/2020 02:30, Jen Linkova wrote:
> One thing to add here: the chairs would like to hear active and
> explicit support of the adoption. So please speak up if you believe
> the draft is useful and the WG shall work on getting it published.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:35 AM Ron Bonica
> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> This email begins a Call For Adoption on
draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please send comments to op...@ietf.org by August 3, 2020.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSEC mailing list
>> op...@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
>
>
>
> --
> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
