Hiya, On 18/04/18 21:13, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 4/17/18 3:37 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> >> On 17/04/18 16:22, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> During ART-ART and IESG review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis, we realized >>> that just pointing to RFC 7525 might not be enough anymore, now that the >>> TLS 1.3 spec has been approved for publication. 7525bis, anyone? >> >> I also think it's a bit early, but no harm to start the >> work, as long as it's not rushed. I'd say it'll be a while >> before e.g. we see some of the 0rtt car-crashes that it'd >> be good to advise against;-) > > Waiting until DTLS 1.3 is finished seems like a good idea.
Agreed. > As to car crashes, that's not the job of 7525bis - if there are problems > with 0rtt, someone needs to fix TLS, not the guidelines for using it. Disagree. 0rtt will (IMO, crystal balling:-) be used unsafely by some folks. Assuming that we won't end up with consensus to remove the feature from TLS1.3, then I do think it'd be right to document what we know about (un)safely using 0rtt at the time BCP195 is being updated. RFC7525 includes similar text e.g. about session resumption (in section 3.4). But... we can safely hold off on resolving that potential disagreement until the relevant work is under way. Cheers, S. > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > Uta@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
