Hey, On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, at 18:33, Nicholas Warren wrote: > Nick, > > I had read over the discussion from 2020 (A non-TLS standard is needed) and > it sounded like TLS was an axiom of the working group. > > Thank you for the quick clarification. You might be interested in going further back to the BoF meeting at IETF96. Martin Thomson gives an overview of QUIC & TLS at around the 48 minute mark and addresses briefly some of the why for TLS: https://youtu.be/aGvFuvmEufs
To be clear though, it's possible to swap out TLS for something else if you to do the work. I'm aware of a few different approaches, although none have been proposed for standardization. Cheers Lucas > > Nich Warren > > *From:* Nick Harper <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2024 12:25 PM > *To:* Nicholas Warren <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Historic TLS Discussion > > > > You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important > <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> > > That discussion would've happened during the WG formation. That QUIC uses TLS > has been in the WG charter since the first draft that I see on the > datatracker, and the original approved charter calls out a key goal of > "Providing always-secure transport, using TLS 1.3 by default." > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:12 AM Nicholas Warren <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hello quic wg. >> >> I am curious about how quic seemingly mandates usage of TLS (rfc9000 section >> 5); albeit I have not completely read quic-tls. >> >> Does anyone remember when you all discussed this? I was hoping to go back >> and read the archived list from when the discussion had taken place. >> >> Thanks, >> Nich Warren
