Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

* Can we get another code point for P256+Kyber768? Fill out the form at https://www.iana.org/form/protocol-assignment Or send email to tls-reg-rev...@iana.org and copy iana-prot-pa...@iana.org There is no requirement that

Re: [TLS] NIST Draft comments period: Addressing Visibility Challenges with TLS 1.3

Hiya, On 17/05/2023 18:49, John Mattsson wrote: Hi, Should IETF / SEC / TLS send an LS to NIST as was done with ESTI-TC-CYBER? Yes. Other relevant bodies defining ways to weaken the hard-won security of IETF protocols really ought always be (nicely) told they're doing a bad thing. I sent

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

Hi, Can we get another code point for P256+Kyber768? Following Bas’s draft, I’ve prepared similar one: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-kyber/ The goals of having those are: * Be able to experiment with flows in which FIPS-approved curves are used * Some HW based

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

Sorry, quick clarification - it’s Panos and myself who prepared, not just me. (Thanks Panos for your help!) > On 17 May 2023, at 19:11, Krzysztof Kwiatkowski wrote: > > Hi, > > Can we get another code point for P256+Kyber768? Following Bas’s draft, I’ve > prepared similar one: >

Re: [TLS] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-tls-tls12-frozen-00.txt

Hiya, On 17/05/2023 15:11, Salz, Rich wrote: This is the "TLS 1.2 is frozen" draft promised in Yokohama. I am pleased to have Nimrod as co-author. We think this is ready for adoption :) I'd be supportive of adoption. I think the draft could do with a clearer statement to the effect that

Re: [TLS] NIST Draft comments period: Addressing Visibility Challenges with TLS 1.3

Hi, Should IETF / SEC / TLS send an LS to NIST as was done with ESTI-TC-CYBER? https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1538/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1616/ A lot of the comments in the LSs to ESTI-TC-CYBER also apply to the NIST work. "Our foremost concern is the use of the name

Re: [TLS] NIST Draft comments period: Addressing Visibility Challenges with TLS 1.3

I think IETF should state in the LS that: The IETF maintains copyright and change control for TLS specifications. Having a separate, different, protocol named "TLS" but developed by another SDO is a recipe for confusion among developers, implementers, and users alike. Reuse of key shares

[TLS] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-tls-tls12-frozen-00.txt

This is the "TLS 1.2 is frozen" draft promised in Yokohama. I am pleased to have Nimrod as co-author. We think this is ready for adoption :) On 5/17/23, 10:08 AM, "internet-dra...@ietf.org " mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: A new version of I-D,