[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-grease

This is the working group last call for the "Applying GREASE to TLS Extensibility" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-grease/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 8 February 2019. NOTE: There is one outstanding issue

[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression

This is the working group last call for the "TLS Certificate Compression” draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 22 April 2019. Issue and PRs can also be filed in

[TLS] WG adoption call: draft-wood-tls-external-psk-importer

At TLS@IETF104, there was consensus in the room to adopt draft-wood-tls-external-psk-importer. This message is to confirm that consensus. If you do not support adoption of draft-wood-tls-external-psk-importer as WG item please say so by 2359UTC on 22 April 2019 (and say why). Thanks, Joe

[TLS] TLS WG presentations

In preparation for the upcoming IETF 105 meeting in Montreal, we’re making some changes to the TLS WG presentation requirements and criteria. A summary of the changes is below. See [1] for more information. 1. With few exceptions, all non-WG presentations must have an accompanied I-D submitted

[TLS] TLS@IETF105: Agenda Topics

The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 105 in Montreal. To help the chairs get a better handle on how much time we will need for our session, please send in your agenda requests to tls-cha...@ietf.org. Along with your request please provide an estimate for how much time you will need. Please also

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF105: Agenda Topics

Just a reminder ... > On Jun 6, 2019, at 12:59, Sean Turner wrote: > > The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 105 in Montreal. To help the chairs get a > better handle on how much time we will need for our session, please send in > your agenda requests to tls-cha...@ietf.org.

[TLS] IANA Considerations for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id

All, During the DE’s review of the assignments for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id, they requested a new “DTLS Only” column be added to the TLS ExtensionType Values registry. This connection_id would be the only “Y” and all others there now would be “N”. The chairs also noted that the IANA

Re: [TLS] IANA Considerations for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id

html [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml [2] Most of the DTLS-OK=N are deprecated cipher suites, but a couple of Exporter Labels are also marked as DTLS-OK=N. > On Jun 20, 2019, at 21:46, Sean Turner wrote: > > All, > &

[TLS] Early code-point assignments for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id

The following temporary assignments have been made for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id: Registry: TLS ExtensionType Values Value: 53 Extension Name: connection_id TLS 1.3: - Recommended: Y Registry: TLS ContentType Registry Value: 25 Description: tls12_cid DTLS-OK: Y J/C/S

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression

The WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression ended on 22 April 2019 We will be working on the shepherd write-up and forwarding it to our AD shortly. If you have any last minute comments please get them in ASAP. Cheers, Chris, Joe, and Sean > On Apr 8, 2019, at 20:52, Sean Tur

Re: [TLS] (offline) Re: Draft for SM cipher suites used in TLS1.3

Kepeng, It seems that this request is OBE (over taken by events) now that you’ve posted the referenced specifications to: https://github.com/alipay/tls13-sm-spec Cheers, spt > On Aug 19, 2019, at 05:38, Kepeng Li wrote: > > Hi WG chairs, > > Can we place the referenced documents in the

[TLS] redirecting discussion (was Re: TLS Impact on Network Security draft updated)

As draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases is not going to be considered within the TLS WG, we need to move the discussions off of the TLS list. After consultation with our AD, we are going to ask that further discussion be directed to the authors either directly to the authors or through the draft’s

Re: [TLS] TLS Impact on Network Security draft updated

Tony, While you may have concerns or otherwise disagree with the contents of this draft, let’s please keep discussion on this list, on all issues, polite and professional. spt (as co-chair) > On Jul 23, 2019, at 16:05, Tony Arcieri wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:51 AM Nancy Cam-Winget

Re: [TLS] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05

> On Oct 1, 2019, at 21:14, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:04 AM John Mattsson > wrote: > Hi, > > I think draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate needs to update > draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch as well. > > draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-20 uses DTLS and even

Re: [TLS] Ecdsa-sig-value in TLS 1.3 – need for erratum?

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 12:23, Hubert Kario wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 13:18:07 CEST Hubert Kario wrote: >> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 17:01:54 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson >> >>> 40ericsson@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

Re: [TLS] DTLS Key Separation PR

Since this had support in the room, we would really like to get a sense if there are any objections to this. Baring any negative comments, we’ll ask ekr to merge this on 10/7. spt > On Oct 1, 2019, at 23:40, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Hi folks, > > As discussed in Montreal, I've prepared a

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-04.txt

This version makes the track change: informational->standards. Once I get the BCP 78 and 79 confirmations from the authors I will be forwarding this to the IESG. spt > On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:40, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line

Re: [TLS] Standards Track for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/8 The authors should feel free to submit a new version (maybe even before the submission cutoff deadline today). spt > On Oct 25, 2019, at 09:04, Sean Turner wrote: > > During my Shepherd review of draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests, I noticed that > th

Re: [TLS] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13

This WGLC has concluded. I will complete my shepherd write-up and forward this to the IESG once I have received the BCP 78 and 70 confirmations. spt > On Oct 13, 2019, at 21:13, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is the second working group last call for the "The Datagram Transport &g

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-04.txt

Sorry folks I was jumping the gun there. I need to kick off the WGLC before sending it on the IESG. Stay tuned. spt > On Nov 4, 2019, at 11:05, Sean Turner wrote: > > This version makes the track change: informational->standards. Once I get > the BCP 78 and 79 con

Re: [TLS] Binder key labels for imported PSKs

We are obviously going to be discussing this outstanding PRs in Singapore, but I am kind of hoping that we can knock this out before then. Do people agree that we want to prevent PSK Importers from being confused with standard OOB PSKs and that we should do this by changing the label used in

[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

All, This is the working group last call for the "TLS Ticket Requests" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 19 November 2019. Note the the GH repo for this draft can be

[TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

At IETF 105, ekr presented cTLS (Compact TLS) [0][1][2] to both the TLS WG and the LAKE BOF, which is now a chartered WG [3]. After some discussions, the ADs suggested [4] that the TLS WG consider whether this draft be adopted as a TLS WG item. LAKE could then later specify/refer/adopt/profile

[TLS] Adoption call for draft-davidben-tls-batch-signing

At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS" [0] as a WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG should not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by posting a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 13 December 2019 (and say

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-07.txt

Minor update to add reference column to the registry that says “this document”. spt > On Nov 21, 2019, at 15:11, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security

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

I’ve been remiss and not closed the WGLC. Stay tuned for me based on today’s WG session. spt > On Nov 6, 2019, at 00:05, Sean Turner wrote: > > All, > > This is the working group last call for the "TLS Ticket Requests" draft > available at https://datatracker

[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate

All, This is the working group last call for the "Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2" draft available https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 13 December 2019. Note

[TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-semistatic-dh

At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Semi-Static Diffie-Hellman Key Establishment" for TLS 1.3 [0] as a WG item. To confirm this on the list: if you believe that the TLS WG should not adopt this as a WG item, then please let the chairs know by posting a message to the TLS list by

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

will formally adopt this draft (i.e., push the buttons in the datatracker) once the WG re-charter process completes successfully. Thanks, > On Nov 21, 2019, at 00:36, Sean Turner wrote: > > At IETF 105, ekr presented cTLS (Compact TLS) [0][1][2] to both the TLS WG > and the LAKE BOF,

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-semistatic-dh

., push the buttons in the datatracker) the WG re-charter process completes successfully. Thanks, Chris, Joe, and Sean > On Nov 21, 2019, at 17:28, Sean Turner wrote: > > At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Semi-Static Diffie-Hellman Key > Establishment" for TL

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-davidben-tls-batch-signing

will formally adopt this draft (i.e., push the buttons in the datatracker) once the WG re-charter process completes successfully. Thanks, Chris, Joe, and Sean > On Nov 21, 2019, at 01:56, Sean Turner wrote: > > At IETF 106 there was support for adoption of "Batch Signing for TLS"

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate

The WGLC ended on Friday. A couple of comments were received and need to be addressed prior to progressing the draft to Ben. We will put the document in the “Revised I-D Needed” state. Thanks, spt > On Nov 21, 2019, at 17:41, Sean Turner wrote: > > All, > > This is the wor

[TLS] TLS@IETF016: Agenda Topics

The preliminary IETF 106 agenda is out: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/. The final agenda will be published later today. The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 106 in Singapore. To help the chairs get a better handle on how arrange our sessions, please send in your agenda requests to

[TLS] Standards Track for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

During my Shepherd review of draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests, I noticed that the intended status of the draft is Informational, but the IANA Considerations sections indicates that the Recommended column is “Y”. RFC 8447 requires Standards Action for an extension to be marked as Recommended. I

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-davidben-tls13-pkcs1

> On Oct 21, 2019, at 12:19, David Benjamin wrote: > > (What's the usual order of operations here? It seems weird to change a > document mid-adoption-call, and, if the document is adopted, it also seems > weird to make the first TLSWG revision different from the document from the > adoption

Re: [TLS] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13

I should have noted sometime ago that the WGLC has concluded. The final issues have been addressed and I will forward the message to Ben for his AD review. spt > On Oct 14, 2019, at 09:13, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is the second working group last call for the "The Data

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-06.txt

This version, I believe addresses your AD review comments. spt > On Nov 20, 2019, at 19:10, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF. > >

Re: [TLS] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-05

> On Oct 7, 2019, at 16:12, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > Hiya, > > On 07/10/2019 18:29, Rob Sayre wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:34 PM Stephen Farrell >> wrote: >>> we can't "UPDATE" an I-D. >> >> Not true. If you need to refer to something that's been IESG-approved but >> still in the

[TLS] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13

This is the second working group last call for the "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on 28 October 2019. Please

[TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

one more time ... All, The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way forward for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests. The issue at hand is whether the client-initiated ticket request mechanism [0] should be modified to add support for ticket reuse, see [1] lines

[TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-request

All, The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way forward for draft-ietf-tls-request. The issue at hand is whether the client-initiated ticket request mechanism [0] should be modified to add support for ticket reuse, see [1] lines 160-214. As we see it, the way

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-request

Please disregard this message I clicked the send button too soon. spt > On Mar 4, 2020, at 10:46, Sean Turner wrote: > > All, > > The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way > forward for draft-ietf-tls-request. The issue at hand is whe

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Nico, > On Mar 4, 2020, at 15:15, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 05:09:35PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: >>>Must the ticket reuse use case be addresses >> in draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests? > > I'm missing this post in my inbox, so I shall reply to Rich Salz's > reply.

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 15:43, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Sean Turner wrote: >>> On Mar 4, 2020, at 15:15, Nico Williams wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 05:09:35PM +, Salz, Rich wrote: >>>>> M

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 21:30, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > Hiya, > > On 05/03/2020 02:25, Rob Sayre wrote: >> >>> I also note what seems like a correlation between >>> people's yes/no opinions on this and whether or not they >>> (or sponsors/employers) are involved in implementing >>> a web

Re: [TLS] progressing draft-ietf-tls-ticket-request

> On Feb 29, 2020, at 22:19, Nico Williams wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:29:38PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Nico Williams wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote: However, I don't think we should add a second

[TLS] tls@IETF107 Important Dates

FYI - the I-D submission deadline for IETF 107 is: 2020-03-09 (Monday) by UTC 23:59 Other dates can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/ Cheers, spt ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org

[TLS] progressing draft-ietf-tls-ticket-request

Hi! Based on Tommy Pauly’s suggestion [0], Joe and I believe that the best way for us to get to the place where we can declare rough consensus is to: * Consider the PR: [1]. This PR explains that when racing connections, the client will not necessarily know the number of tickets it will

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF017: Agenda Topics

Hi! Just aa gentle reminder for agenda topic request. Also, if you are planning to be a remote presenter please let us know. spt > On Feb 18, 2020, at 20:05, Sean Turner wrote: > > The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 107 in Vancouver. To help the chairs get a > better handle on

Re: [TLS] code point assignments for draft-ietf-tls-subcerts

020, at 12:17, Sean Turner wrote: > > Hi! > > The chairs want to determine whether we should ask for the assignments > requested in draft-ietf-tls-subcerts [0][1]. We believe the draft is stable > enough and that there is interest from multiple implementers. Please let the

Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8446 (5976)

Ah. I will admit it’s a little weird to do an errata to change the IANA registry. Maybe we tweak the errata to include the following text so there is a trail of bits: Corrected Text -- Section 11. IANA Considerations Certificate Types paragraph IANA haas to updated the TLS

Re: [TLS] code point assignments for draft-ietf-tls-subcerts

Just an FYI, I sent the message to the DEs just now. spt > On Jan 27, 2020, at 05:44, Sean Turner wrote: > > FYI - Ben has, rightly, pointed out that we cannot request that TLS DEs set > the Recommended column to “Y” until the draft is published as a standards > trac

[TLS] Kickoff message for PSK DT

Hi! As alluded to in my message on Friday, a DT (Design Team) [0] has been formed to document considerations for how to use the PSKs to avoid various attacks. There are lots of PSK-related issues, but the chairs would like to maintain focus on the topic at hand. Those that volunteered for the

[TLS] PSK design team email

Thanks to everyone who volunteered to participate in the external PSK design team [0]. We will send off a kickoff email to the group soon. Note that we do not expect the design team to finish their work by IETF 107 given the short amount of time remaining before that meeting. Thanks, Sean [0]

[TLS] TLS@IETF017: Agenda Topics

The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 107 in Vancouver. To help the chairs get a better handle on how arrange our sessions, please send in your agenda requests to tls-cha...@ietf.org. Along with your request please provide an estimate for how much time you will need. Please note that we will

Re: [TLS] TLS@IETF017: Agenda Topics

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 01:39, Rob Sayre wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:06 PM Sean Turner wrote: > The TLS WG will be meeting @ IETF 107 in Vancouver. To help the chairs get a > better handle on how arrange our sessions, please send in your agenda

[TLS] code point assignments for draft-ietf-tls-subcerts

Hi! The chairs want to determine whether we should ask for the assignments requested in draft-ietf-tls-subcerts [0][1]. We believe the draft is stable enough and that there is interest from multiple implementers. Please let the WG know by 2359 UTC 05 February 2020 whether you disagree with

Re: [TLS] External PSK design team // Scope for "Low-entropy PSK" applications

ed > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities > other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in > error, please contact the sender and delete the m

[TLS] External PSK design team

At IETF 106, we discussed forming a design team to focus on external PSK management and usage for TLS. The goal of this team would be to produce a document that discusses considerations for using external PSKs, privacy concerns (and possible mitigations) for stable identities, and more

[TLS] 2nd consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

hi TLS WG, During the consensus call to determine whether ticket reuse use cases should be supported we did not see consensus to add that text, but we did seem some potential emerging consensus to add a second field to the extension; technically, it is to rename count->new_session_count and

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

-ticketrequest/pull/18 [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/17 > On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:06, Sean Turner wrote: > > one more time ... > > All, > > The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way > forward for draft

Re: [TLS] [Uta] CBOR Certificate Compression of RFC 7925 certificates suitable for cTLS

-hat John, There is already a certificate compression mechanism defined in draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression, which is currently in the RFC editor’s queue. How do these documents relate to that one? spt > On Apr 8, 2020, at 09:29, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > Thanks for the info,

Re: [TLS] NIST crypto group and HKDF (and therefore TLS 1.3)

Rich, Check out SP 800-52r2. Section 3.1 includes the following: servers … should be configured to negotiate TLS 1.3. and Agencies shall support TLS 1.3 by January 1, 2024. “should” and “shall” are defined in RFC 2119. One could make the case that you are already there ;} If not, then I’m

[TLS] Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

I thought I would forward this for those would like to participate in the survey but are not on the ietf-announce list. Please take the time to fill out the survey below. spt > Begin forwarded message: > > From: IETF Executive Director > Subject: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible

[TLS] Fwd: IETF 108 will be an online meeting

FYI in case you are not subscribed to the IETF announce list. > Begin forwarded message: > > From: IETF Chair > Subject: IETF 108 will be an online meeting > Date: May 14, 2020 at 17:07:47 EDT > To: IETF-Announce , irtf-annou...@irtf.org, IETF > > Reply-To: IETF > > The Internet Engineering

Re: [TLS] Bikeshedding ECHO

I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people didn’t have a strong preference and there might be some (possibly small) chance of confusion, it seems like we should change the name to ETCH (Encrypted TLS Client Hello). spt > On May 7, 2020, at 18:52, Christopher Wood

[TLS] 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13

This is the third working group last call for the "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13/ . Please review the document and send your

[TLS] Fwd: IETF 107 Vancouver In-Person Meeting Cancelled

For those of you not on the i...@ietf.org mailing list and that planning to attend in-person, this is of interest. I will also forward the ED follow up message about registration cancellations and refunds. spt > Begin forwarded message: > > From: The IESG > Subject: IETF 107 Vancouver

Re: [TLS] Bikeshedding ECHO

> On May 7, 2020, at 19:03, Tommy Pauly > wrote: > > To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”. If we could just work an “a" and “sketch” into the name … I am all in. More seriously, let’s knock this decision out by end of next week, i.e., the 15th. spt

[TLS] consensus call: changing cTLS and ECH to standards track

It looks like the intended status for both draft-ietf-tls-ctls (aka cTLS) and draft-ietf-tls-esni (aka ECH) should be changed. It appears that both should be set to standards track; cTLS is now Informational and ECH is Experimental. If you object to changing the track for either of these drafts

[TLS] adoption call for draft-dt-tls-external-psk-guidance

This is a WG document adoption call for draft-dt-tls-external-psk-guidance (aka Guidance for External PSK Usage in TLS). This effort was kicked off @IETF106 by Ben Kaduk and supported by others in the audience. There was also some nominal amount of support for adopting the draft at the last

[TLS] 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticators

This is the 3rd WGLC for "Exported Authenticators in TLS" draft available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator/. The secdir review during IETF LC raised some issues and as a result there have been a couple of new versions. Please respond to the list with any

Re: [TLS] Ticket request PR#20

All, We recommend that PR#20 be closed and we will progress the draft to Ben for his AD review. The suggested text is not strictly needed. As the name of the draft suggests, the client’s ticket requests are just that a request for tickets. The server is free to do whatever it wants with the

Re: [TLS] Bikeshedding ECHO

Okay let’s call this done! ECH it is. spt Sent from my iPhone >> On May 21, 2020, at 11:53, Erik Nygren wrote: >  > Are there any objections to "ECH" or should we just go with that? > (I'd like to update the parameter name in SRVB/HTTPSSVC accordingly based on > what gets decided.) > > >>

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06

Ben, Thanks for pointing out I missed a couple. Inline … spt > On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Hi Kathleen, > > Also inline. > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 04:29:56PM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> >> Thanks for your review. Some initial responses are

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06

> On Oct 13, 2020, at 14:34, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > I think we still need to check for the latest version of the SP800-52r2 > reference, too. You are correct - the date should be August 2019: https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/pull/8 spt

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-07.txt

Ben, This version incorporates the PR you submitted to address you AD comments as well as a PR to address moving RFC 7507 to obsolete. I believe/hope this version is ready for IETF LC. spt > On Oct 9, 2020, at 09:44, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-03

Roman, Thanks for your review. Some comments inline. spt > On Oct 2, 2020, at 19:42, Roman Danyliw wrote: > > Hi! > > I've assumed the role of responsible AD on this document. As such, I > performed an AD review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-03. > > Thanks for writing this

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-05

I submitted these as an Issue in the repo: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/issues/37 spt > On Oct 1, 2020, at 16:22, Roman Danyliw wrote: > > ** Section 1. Editorial. Expand acronym on first use: > -- s/TLS 1.2 PRF/TLS 1.2 Pseudorandom Function (PRF)/ > --

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator-13

I have entered these as an issue in the repo: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/issues/66 spt > On Oct 2, 2020, at 12:50, Roman Danyliw wrote: > > Hi! > > I've assumed the role of responsible AD on this document. As such, I > performed an AD review of

[TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06)

Hi! this issue was buried in the Ben’s review, but I think it is worth getting some attention on. > On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 04:29:56PM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:22 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>> >>> -

Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06)

> On Sep 23, 2020, at 09:36, Salz, Rich wrote: > > Not to bury the lead or anything, but posting detailed analysis at 5:43am? > We can guess that you’re not in a different timezone… > > Sure, looks fine to me. Okay so I’ll leave this sit until the middle of next week. But, unless I hear

Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06)

> On Sep 23, 2020, at 08:43, Sean Turner wrote: > > Hi! this issue was buried in the Ben’s review, but I think it is worth > getting some attention on. > >> On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 04:29:56

Re: [TLS] 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticators

Just a reminder ... > On May 22, 2020, at 09:23, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is the 3rd WGLC for "Exported Authenticators in TLS" draft available at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator/. The > secdir review during IETF LC raised so

Re: [TLS] Moving SHA-1 signature schemes to not recommended in draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate

Rich, Just to close the loop on this, there are three values: Y, N, and blank. I tend to think we should mark is as “N”: If an item is not marked as "Recommended" (i.e., "N"), it does not necessarily mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either has not been through

Re: [TLS] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04

Please note the comment about Section 3 suggests changing server behavior from SHOULD NOT to a MUST NOT. > On Oct 27, 2020, at 10:19, Daniel Migault via Datatracker > wrote: > > Reviewer: Daniel Migault > Review result: Ready with Nits > > Hi, > > > I reviewed this document as part of the

Re: [TLS] ECH & HPKE versions as an example of too much githubbery

Stephen, Given that there appears to be emerging consensus around the "issue discussion mode with email summaries sounds" presented in Chris' email from just last week can we let that settle? We can certainly get a summary together - granted there have been interim meetings with published

Re: [TLS] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 10:32, Daniel Migault wrote: > > To address the comment below, keeping weak security is likely to weaken > current and future IoT communications, so I do not think there is room for > compromise with performance. Of course this is in a context of TLS. I expect >

Re: [TLS] [Last-Call] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04

> On Oct 27, 2020, at 19:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> > > Daniel Migault via Datatracker wrote: >> RFC6194 may be mentioned as a reference for >> not deprecating HMAC-SHA-1 as well as an >> additional reference to [NISTSP800-131A-R2]. > >> Reading

Re: [TLS] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate-04

Rich, THanks for the review. Pretty funny that we forgot the 8446 reference. We will get that added. spt > On Oct 22, 2020, at 15:22, Rich Salz via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Rich Salz > Review result: Has Nits > > I'm the assigned security directorate reviewer for this draft. This is

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call for draft-tschofenig-tls-dtls-rrc

Just a reminder that this WG adoption call is still ongoing. spt > On Jul 22, 2020, at 14:55, Sean Turner wrote: > > Hi! > > The authors of "Return Routability Check for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3" have > asked for adoption of their draft as a WG item. Please

Re: [TLS] Closing WGLC (was Re: 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticators)

Great! This document is now ready to progress to the AD. spt > On Jun 26, 2020, at 20:00, Nick Sullivan wrote: > > TLSWG and Chairs, > > I've submitted draft -13 with the appropriate changes. > > Best, > Nick > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 AM Sean Turner

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-guidance-00.txt

Just a reminder to please have a look at this draft. spt > On Jun 19, 2020, at 23:39, Sean Turner wrote: > > Thanks to Chris for uploading the WG version of the draft. > > If you have some time over the next couple of weeks please take the time to > review this draft. The

[TLS] Fwd: Nomcom 2020-2021 Final Call For Volunteers

In case you are not on the IETF discuss list. spt > Begin forwarded message: > > From: NomCom Chair 2020 > Subject: Nomcom 2020-2021 Final Call For Volunteers > Date: June 18, 2020 at 18:38:42 EDT > To: "IETF Announcement List" > Cc: i...@ietf.org > > Hi IETFers, > We're down to the last

Re: [TLS] consensus call: changing cTLS and ECH to standards track

21, 2020, at 22:10, Sean Turner wrote: > > It looks like the intended status for both draft-ietf-tls-ctls (aka cTLS) and > draft-ietf-tls-esni (aka ECH) should be changed. It appears that both should > be set to standards track; cTLS is now Informational and ECH is Experimental.

[TLS] Closing WGLC (was Re: 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticators)

0 at 9:48 PM Sean Turner wrote: >> >> Another reminder ... >> >>> On May 22, 2020, at 09:23, Sean Turner wrote: >>> >>> This is the 3rd WGLC for "Exported Authenticators in TLS" draft available >>> at https://datatracker.ietf.org/

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-guidance-00.txt

Thanks to Chris for uploading the WG version of the draft. If you have some time over the next couple of weeks please take the time to review this draft. The intent is to issue a WGLC after IETF 108 barring any discontent prior that. spt > On Jun 17, 2020, at 23:28, internet-dra...@ietf.org

[TLS] adopting (was Re: adoption call for draft-dt-tls-external-psk-guidance)

22:12, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is a WG document adoption call for draft-dt-tls-external-psk-guidance > (aka Guidance for External PSK Usage in TLS). This effort was kicked off > @IETF106 by Ben Kaduk and supported by others in the audience. There was also > some nominal

Re: [TLS] 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticators

Another reminder ... > On May 22, 2020, at 09:23, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is the 3rd WGLC for "Exported Authenticators in TLS" draft available at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator/. The > secdir review during I

Re: [TLS] adoption call for draft-dt-tls-external-psk-guidance

Just a reminder that this call ends today. So far we’ve only seen one response. I think I can safely say assume that the 12 people on the DT agree, but let me know I got that wrong. spt > On May 21, 2020, at 22:12, Sean Turner wrote: > > This is a WG document adoption call for dra

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >