Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis

[Salz, Rich]

In CURDLE this week, we had consensus (to be confirmed on the list, of course) 
that
Signature contexts were created in the TLS arena, we all thought we 
needed them in other areas, and we don't, therefore all CURDLE documents for 
those other areas will specify a zero-length context.

FWIW.

I agree with Yoav's message, for the reasons he states.

--  
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz


> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:s...@sn3rd.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 6:56 PM
> To: 
> Subject: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis
> 
> All,
> 
> This is a working group last call for the “4492bis to Standards Track" draft
> available @ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis/.  
> Please
> review the document and send your comments to the list by 9 December
> 2016.
> 
> Note that we are particularly interesting in the issue Yoav raises in the
> following message:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8Ec7jQqLr_3FrvQfuclllfozKZk
> 
> Thanks,
> J
> ___
> 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

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Watson Ladd]

Rebrand 4. There is no reason not to.

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Steven Valdez]

Maintaining my hum from the meeting, I prefer keeping TLS 1.3 over
renaming, primarily because there's now a good amount of
documentation/implementation in the wild that refers to TLS 1.3, and we'll
need to keep around the new equivalence of TLS 2 (or 4)=TLS 1.3.


On Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 8:31 AM Ira McDonald  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think that the presumption that most tech people (or even security
> people)
> won't have any trouble with the future version numbering of TLS is wrong.
>
> Yesterday morning, on an SAE Vehicle Electrical Systems Security call with
> some 40 auto security professionals present, I mentioned that TLS 1.3 was
> wrapping up and was asked "What's TLS?"  Usual explanation about SSL
> being succeeded by IETF TLS 17 years ago.  Several responses that were
> the equivalent of blank stares.  And finally, "Then why is the library
> still
> called OpenSSL?"
>
> Rich has highlighted that the tech community goes right on conflating SSL
> with TLS on web sites.
>
> I change my two cents to "TLS 4" but am unsure about "4" or "4.0" because
> the tech community has been trained to care about major.minor.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
>
> Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
> Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
> Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
> Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
> Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
> Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
> http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> mailto: blueroofmu...@gmail.com
> Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
> May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Jeffrey Walton 
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sean Turner  wrote:
> > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG
> should rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf
> .
> >
> > The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to
> not rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this
> decision on the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
> >
> > - Leave it TLS 1.3
> > - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> > - Rebrand TLS 2
> > - Rebrand TLS 4
> >
> > by 2 December 2016.
>
> Please forgive my ignorance...
>
> Who are you targeting for the versioning scheme? Regular users? Mom
> and pop shops with a web presence? Tech guys and gals? Security folks?
>
> For most tech people and security folks, I don't think it matters
> much. However, how many regular users would have clung to SSLv3 and
> TLS 1.0 (given TLS 1.2 was available) if they were named SSL 1995 and
> TLS 1999 (given TLS 2008 or TLS 2010 was available)?
>
> (Sorry to violate the Hum restriction).
>
> Jeff
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Vlad Krasnov]

 "Then why is the library still
> called OpenSSL?"

All those arguments show basic confusion of what TLS is. Version numbers won't 
help solve that. 

Only going back to using the SSL name might.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis

[Yaron Sheffer]

I have not read the document in full (but still noticed a typo in the 
paragraph we're discussing), so I will not comment on its readiness.


Regarding signature context: I don't understand the CFRG recommendation 
that Yoav is citing. IMO we should include a context string wherever we 
can, to reduce the number of possible cross-protocol (or cross-signature 
scheme) attacks. As far as I know context strings do not cost anything 
and can only improve the protocol's security.


Maybe one day we will only have signatures deployed that support 
context, but if we don't add the context string now we will never get 
there. We are not going to revise TLS just to add a context string to EdDSA.


Thanks,
Yaron

On 19/11/16 08:55, Sean Turner wrote:

All,

This is a working group last call for the “4492bis to Standards Track" draft 
available @ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis/.  Please 
review the document and send your comments to the list by 9 December 2016.

Note that we are particularly interesting in the issue Yoav raises in the 
following message:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8Ec7jQqLr_3FrvQfuclllfozKZk

Thanks,
J
___
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

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Ira McDonald]

Hi,

I think that the presumption that most tech people (or even security people)
won't have any trouble with the future version numbering of TLS is wrong.

Yesterday morning, on an SAE Vehicle Electrical Systems Security call with
some 40 auto security professionals present, I mentioned that TLS 1.3 was
wrapping up and was asked "What's TLS?"  Usual explanation about SSL
being succeeded by IETF TLS 17 years ago.  Several responses that were
the equivalent of blank stares.  And finally, "Then why is the library still
called OpenSSL?"

Rich has highlighted that the tech community goes right on conflating SSL
with TLS on web sites.

I change my two cents to "TLS 4" but am unsure about "4" or "4.0" because
the tech community has been trained to care about major.minor.

Cheers,
- Ira


Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmu...@gmail.com
Jan-April: 579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434


On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Jeffrey Walton  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sean Turner  wrote:
> > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG
> should rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-
> 97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.
> >
> > The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to
> not rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this
> decision on the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
> >
> > - Leave it TLS 1.3
> > - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> > - Rebrand TLS 2
> > - Rebrand TLS 4
> >
> > by 2 December 2016.
>
> Please forgive my ignorance...
>
> Who are you targeting for the versioning scheme? Regular users? Mom
> and pop shops with a web presence? Tech guys and gals? Security folks?
>
> For most tech people and security folks, I don't think it matters
> much. However, how many regular users would have clung to SSLv3 and
> TLS 1.0 (given TLS 1.2 was available) if they were named SSL 1995 and
> TLS 1999 (given TLS 2008 or TLS 2010 was available)?
>
> (Sorry to violate the Hum restriction).
>
> Jeff
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Peter Gutmann]

Ilari Liusvaara  writes:

>Nope, I was referring to the very technical property that if client sends a
>TLS 1.3 handshake, a TLS 1.2 server can still successfully interop, provoded
>that the client does TLS 1.2 too

That's like saying that PGP and S/MIME are compatible because if a client
sends a PGP message, a MIME-enabled server can still successfully interop
provided the S/MIME server does PGP too.

Anyway, it's a silly debate (as my Wozniak joke tried to point out), so I'll 
bow 
out now.

Peter.

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sean Turner  wrote:
> At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should 
> rebrand TLS1.3 to something else.  Slides can be found @ 
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf.
>
> The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not 
> rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4.  We need to confirm this decision on 
> the list so please let the list know your top choice between:
>
> - Leave it TLS 1.3
> - Rebrand TLS 2.0
> - Rebrand TLS 2
> - Rebrand TLS 4
>
> by 2 December 2016.

Please forgive my ignorance...

Who are you targeting for the versioning scheme? Regular users? Mom
and pop shops with a web presence? Tech guys and gals? Security folks?

For most tech people and security folks, I don't think it matters
much. However, how many regular users would have clung to SSLv3 and
TLS 1.0 (given TLS 1.2 was available) if they were named SSL 1995 and
TLS 1999 (given TLS 2008 or TLS 2010 was available)?

(Sorry to violate the Hum restriction).

Jeff

___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls