Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: SNI Encryption
The working has expressed consensus to work on the problem of SNI encryption. More work is needed to determine the technical approach to SNI encryption. The chairs believe there is enough interest and energy to adopt this draft and continue work within the working group instead of asking the constituents to arrive at a solution before adoption. This document will serve as the basis for discussion. Whether the document will cover the solution to the problem will be determined by the chairs at a later point in time. The chairs request the author remove the normative text from the description of the attacks and submit draft-ietf-tls-sni-encr yption-00.txt. Thanks, J&S On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 17/08/17 05:18, Martin Thomson wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858 > > > > I hear that there are even implementations and deployments. > > Yes, I used the resolver doing this at the last IETF meeting. > It worked. Not "just worked," but pretty good. > > > > > It's certainly time to have the discussion about closing the next gap. > > Yes. I'm in favour of adopting as a strong signal that this > is a WG item. I don't think anyone needs to be allergic to > a wg draft-00 that still documents more than one proposal, > there's no specific place in the evolution of an RFC before > which such things MUST get sorted out, so while being a bit > concerned that we still have two options is very reasonable, > that's not IMO a winning argument against wg adoption. > > S. > > > ___ > 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] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit
All done, including the PR being merged into the editor's copy. On 29 August 2017 at 00:03, Sean Turner wrote: > It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. > I’ve set up a GH repo in the TLSWG > repo:https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit. > Please submit the current draft as a working group item with the filename > draft-ietf-tls-record-limit.If you can hold off on merging PR#1 until > it’s a WG item, that would be great (i.e., publish then merge). > > Thanks, > > J&S > >> On Aug 4, 2017, at 08:50, Sean Turner wrote: >> >> At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt >> draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this support on the >> list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft >> and are willing to review/comment on the draft before 20170818. If you >> object to its adoption, please let us know why. >> >> Cheers, >> >> J&S >> >> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-tls-record-limit/ > > ___ > 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] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-00.txt
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. Title : Record Size Limit Extension for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Author : Martin Thomson Filename: draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-00.txt Pages : 6 Date: 2017-08-28 Abstract: An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) is defined that allows endpoints to negotiate the maximum size of protected records that each will send the other. This replaces the maximum fragment length extension defined in RFC 6066. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] WG Call for Adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-subcerts continued
It looks like we have consensus after the 2nd WG call for adoption to adopt this draft as a working group item as the draft was revised to address concerns brought up during the 1st WG call for adoption. I’ve set up a GH repo at: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-subcerts. Please submit the current draft as a working group item with the filename draft-ietf-tls-subcerts. Thanks, J&S > On Aug 4, 2017, at 13:42, Joseph Salowey wrote: > > In the previous call for adoption there were some issues raised that needed > more discussion. The summary sent to the list [1] and subsequent > discussions indicate support for the approach outlined in this draft. > Therefore we would like to continue the call for adoption. If you have > concerns about adopting this draft as a working group item please respond to > the list by August 18, 2017. > > Thanks, > > J&S > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg24092.html > ___ > 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] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit
It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. I’ve set up a GH repo in the TLSWG repo:https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit. Please submit the current draft as a working group item with the filename draft-ietf-tls-record-limit.If you can hold off on merging PR#1 until it’s a WG item, that would be great (i.e., publish then merge). Thanks, J&S > On Aug 4, 2017, at 08:50, Sean Turner wrote: > > At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt > draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this support on the > list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft > and are willing to review/comment on the draft before 20170818. If you > object to its adoption, please let us know why. > > Cheers, > > J&S > > [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-tls-record-limit/ ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
