I also support adoption. On the question of how the work should be factored: It is true that this work comprises 3-4 fairly separable technologies. However, they have in common that they need to be pre-agreed between the client and server (except possibly the "known certificates" mechanism, which could possibly be negotiated with ClientHello/ServerHello extensions). So my inclination would be to push forward with this work as a unified package, and consider later whether certain mechanisms are separable.
--Richard On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Ben Schwartz <bemasc= [email protected]> wrote: > I support adoption. > > In the spirit of Ted Hardie's comment on dividing the work into pieces, > I'd like to suggest putting the handshake compression into a separate draft > from the certificate compression. Certificate compression could be made > into an extension that is usable in standard TLS. cTLS can then use it for > free with extension monomorphization. > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:38 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I support adoption. >> >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:36 PM Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 it, as appropriate.. The authors revised cTLS >>> and presented the revised draft at IETF 106 [5]. At IETF 106 there was >>> support for adoption of cTLS 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 why). >>> >>> NOTE: >>> : If the consensus is that this draft should be adopted as a WG item, >>> then this will necessarily result in a WG rechartering discussions. We >>> would have gotten to this rechartering discussion anyway now that DTLS 1.3 >>> is progressing out of the WG. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Chris, Joe, and Sean >>> >>> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-tls-sessa-ctls/ >>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/ >>> [2] https://github.com/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls >>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/ >>> [4] >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/kACwW7PXrmTRa4PvXQ0TA34xCvk >>> [5] >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tls-compact-tls-13-00.pdf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TLS mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
