Re: #612: 9.2.2 and ALPN

On 11/12/14, 1:56 PM, "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:


>I think this is moving in a better direction, but Yoav's note is one of
>the biggest reasons why I think rather than trying to introduce a new
>concept of "mandatory to deploy," we should use the well-tested model of
>MUST implement, SHOULD use.  This is one of many situations in which a
>deployment will know better than this WG which ciphers are appropriate to
>their environment.  SHOULD means that if you don't, you're likely to have
>interop pain, which seems exactly applicable here.  If you have local
>knowledge that leads you to depart from this behavior, you do that
>knowing clients outside your control won't talk to you as easily.

I've stayed silent thus far on this topic because I do applaud the efforts
and concerns for securing the big 'I' Internet and the big 'W' Web.

However, in the embedded world, I think we will be using the RFC 7251
cipher suites (e.g., TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8) exclusively, at
least for some time, due to the built-in hardware support for CCM.

So, I would encourage a re-think on the MTI/MTD language and possibly even
slackening the requirements language ala Roy's comments in Honolulu.

- Robby

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 20:17:40 UTC