Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Dave Garrett
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 09:12:48 pm Sean Turner wrote: > The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not > rebrand it to TLS 2.0, TLS 2, or TLS 4. We need to confirm this decision on > the list so please let the list know your top choice between: > > - Leave it

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread David Benjamin
I already hummed in the room, but I think it should stay as TLS 1.3. Either of TLS 2 or TLS 4 makes the SSL/TLS silliness worse. One matches SSL 2.0 and the other just makes all this weirder. (Do we really want 2.0 < 3.0 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.2 < 4?) TLS 1.3 is the natural next number and doesn't make a

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:12:48AM +0900, Sean Turner wrote: > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should > rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @ > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf. > > The conse

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Tony Arcieri
I am a big fan of leaving it as TLS 1.3. It feels more like evolution than revolution, even with the addition of 0-RTT. I would like to see a future TLS 2.0, but one that makes fundamental changes which didn't make the cut for 1.3, e.g. moving to OPTLS. -- Tony Arcieri __

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Nick Harper
I prefer TLS 1.3 but am also fine with TLS 4. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should > rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @ > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides- > 97-tls-

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Erik Nygren
I also prefer TLS 4 but am fine with TLS 1.3 - Erik On Nov 17, 2016 9:41 PM, "Yoav Nir" wrote: > Bleh. Can’t we get AOL to release the SSL trademark so that we can call it > SSLv4? > > I hummed for TLS 4, so I’ll stay consistent: TLS 4. > > Yoav > > > On 18 Nov 2016, at 11:12, Sean Turner wr

Re: [TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Yoav Nir
Bleh. Can’t we get AOL to release the SSL trademark so that we can call it SSLv4? I hummed for TLS 4, so I’ll stay consistent: TLS 4. Yoav > On 18 Nov 2016, at 11:12, Sean Turner wrote: > > At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should > rebrand TLS1.3 to somethi

[TLS] Confirming consensus: TLS1.3->TLS*

2016-11-17 Thread Sean Turner
At IETF 97, the chairs lead a discussion to resolve whether the WG should rebrand TLS1.3 to something else. Slides can be found @ https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-rebranding-aka-pr612-01.pdf. The consensus in the room was to leave it as is, i.e., TLS1.3, and to not rebr

[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead

2016-11-17 Thread Sean Turner
This is the working group last call for the "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM CSs for TLS" draft available at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead/. Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 9 December 2016. Thanks, J&S ___

Re: [TLS] Call for agenda items @ IETF 97

2016-11-17 Thread Sean Turner
New version uploaded v6 is now the current version. spt > On Nov 18, 2016, at 08:13, Sean Turner wrote: > > I’ve uploaded the slides for Friday as well as a revised WG Chair Slide deck > (version 5), which reflects the revised agenda based on presentations that > got moved to Wednesday. > >

Re: [TLS] Call for agenda items @ IETF 97

2016-11-17 Thread Sean Turner
I’ve uploaded the slides for Friday as well as a revised WG Chair Slide deck (version 5), which reflects the revised agenda based on presentations that got moved to Wednesday. spt > On Nov 15, 2016, at 08:20, Sean Turner wrote: > > Please note that I’ve been uploading the presentations as I’v

Re: [TLS] [ALU] Re: extending the un-authenticated DTLS header

2016-11-17 Thread Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
Hi Achim, On 16/11/2016 10:21, "TLS on behalf of Kraus Achim (INST/ESY1)" wrote: >I'm still wondering, why the "clashing" calculations (section 4) are only >based on the number of clients and not also on the length of the hash >chain. I guess you are right. The left column should say "sessions

Re: [TLS] Point validation in 1.3

2016-11-17 Thread Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
Le 2016-11-17 14:58, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud a écrit : Le 2016-11-15 15:35, Ilari Liusvaara a écrit : On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:02:24PM +0900, Yoav Nir wrote: I think the performance enhancement (in terms of handshakes per second) that you get by reusing ephemeral keys is so great, that we ha

Re: [TLS] Point validation in 1.3

2016-11-17 Thread Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
Le 2016-11-15 15:35, Ilari Liusvaara a écrit : On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 05:02:24PM +0900, Yoav Nir wrote: I think the performance enhancement (in terms of handshakes per second) that you get by reusing ephemeral keys is so great, that we have to assume people will do it. You don’t have to keep