Hi Rachid, I reviewed this draft on the SECDISPATCH list [0].
I actually don't think that this is particularly relevant to TLS. As you note, the header is just carried in HTTP headers and while some of the properties it talks about might apply to TLS, we don't usually think that those kinds of references require tight collaboration with the WG in charge of the subject protocol. For example, if you have some YANG model that involves managing TLS keying material, we don't make it a joint TLS WG item. If this is eventually adopted, I think it would be fine to have the WGLC CCed to the TLS mailing list for review of correctness and usefulness. -Ekr [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/zFZgwErhLvlWc9WFEz1EatSdazY/ On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 10:35 AM rachid bouziane <exelog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear TLS WG, > > A new revision of my draft has been posted: > > OODA-HTTP: Adaptive Security Framework for HTTP Communications > > Draft: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-secroot-ooda-http-02.txt > > Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-secroot-ooda-http-02 > > Highlights in -02: > > Cleaned and updated references (including QUIC-LB -21, DOTS). > > Clarified Security Considerations. > > Introduced a unified OODA-Action registry (Appendix B). > > Editorial cleanup of boilerplate and authorship metadata. > > OODA-HTTP coordinates with TLS/HTTPS/QUIC but does not modify TLS itself. > The role of TLS WG is essential to ensure alignment and avoid > conflicts, and I welcome feedback on scope and interoperability. > > Best regards, > Rachid Bouziane > SecRoot.io > 📧 cont...@secroot.io >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
