The weird thing is they got @matthew_d_green to front it for themhttps://twitter.com/RichFelker/status/888842483668586500 …
-
-
Replying to @letoams @matthew_d_green
Not familiar with his role in this but my guess would be it was ~= what the linked article called the "practical"/compromise position.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If that's not the case could you elaborate rather than just making an accusation of "fronting"?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @matthew_d_green
fronting as "his name is on the draft and he was at IETF for the first time I remember promoting it at TLS"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @letoams @matthew_d_green
Again that doesn't really distinguish without looking at mailing list posts or meeting minutes, etc..
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
IIRC he was one target of the "NSA is bribing academics" smear campaign, so I'm (hopefully understandably) skeptical of related claims...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @matthew_d_green
people can and do change opinions. But sacrificing PFS for enterprise decryption seems bad.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @letoams @matthew_d_green
The "pragmatic" position seems to be that enterprise will break PFS somehow anyway, and that it's better to have an official clean way...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
...than for them to do some awful hacks that break things even worse. I think this view is wrong but I understand why some ppl hold it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.