Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

I hope this moves forward. On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 05:50, Christopher Wood wrote: > > As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus > for moving draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design forward with the following strategy > for allocating codepoints we can use in deployments. >

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-02.txt

Hi, 5. IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to mark the cipher suites listed in Appendix C as not recommended in the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry. Note that all cipher suites listed in Appendix A and in Appendix D are already marked as not recommended in the registry. How do we

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

> I would also like secp384r1_kyber1024 option, please. Why do you up the ECDH curve sec level with Kyber1024? It adds unnecessary size to the keyshare. like secp384r1_kyber768 combines two equivalent security levels. Those that want to be extra conservative can go secp521r1_kyber1024 which

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

+1 for NIST curve codepoints. From: TLS On Behalf Of Krzysztof Kwiatkowski Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:00 PM To: Christopher Wood Cc: TLS@ietf.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL][TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design CAUTION: This email originated from

Re: [TLS] New Version Notification for draft-mattsson-tls-compact-ecc-04.txt

This version just fixes a few nits. - I think the new encodings make sense for cTLS where my understanding is that people likely want to keep using P-256 key share. Then the new encodings save 80 bytes per mutually authenticated handshake. - The new encodings are not needed for non-constrained

[TLS] Milestones changed for tls WG

Deleted milestone "Submit "Batch Signing for TLS" to the IESG". URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/ ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

Can we add secp256r1_kyber768 option for those who prefer NIST curves? I support this. I would also like secp384r1_kyber1024 option, please. Thanks On 29 Mar 2023, at 10:48, Christopher Wood wrote: As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus for

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

> The intent of this proposal is to get us a codepoint that we can deploy today > without putting a "draft codepoint" in an eventual RFC. I support the proposal ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

+1 On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:15 PM Christopher Patton wrote: > I support this. Adding P256 + Kyber768 seems like a good idea. > > Chris P. > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:50 AM Christopher Wood > wrote: > >> As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess >> consensus for

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

I support this. Adding P256 + Kyber768 seems like a good idea. Chris P. On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:50 AM Christopher Wood wrote: > As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus > for moving draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design forward with the following strategy > for

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

I support this proposal. On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 6:49 PM Christopher Wood wrote: > As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus > for moving draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design forward with the following strategy > for allocating codepoints we can use in deployments. >

Re: [TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

Hello, Can we add secp256r1_kyber768 option for those who prefer NIST curves? Kris > On 29 Mar 2023, at 10:48, Christopher Wood wrote: > > As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus > for moving draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design forward with the following strategy

[TLS] Consensus call on codepoint strategy for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design

As discussed during yesterday's meeting, we would like to assess consensus for moving draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design forward with the following strategy for allocating codepoints we can use in deployments. 1. Remove codepoints from draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design and advance this document through

Re: [TLS] WG Adoption call for draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech

Martin Thomson wrote: > Adopt. But please include an example, even if the public key is > 0x010203040506... +1 on including an example. -Jan ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

[TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

As mentioned during yesterday's meeting, this email starts the working group last call for "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3" and "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS” I-Ds, located here: - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis -

Re: [TLS] Packet number encryption negotiation

> A first draft can be found here: > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pismenny-tls-dtls-plaintext-sequence-number-00.txt > > > > and the source is here: >

Re: [TLS] [TLS-NO-AUTH] Proposal to skip TLS authentication for entertainment purposes

Hi, On 3/28/23 00:39, Hal Murray wrote: h...@selasky.org said: A typical video stream of 4 MBit/s may produce on average 333 packets per second, and I ask a simple question if it is really needed to authenticate all of those packets while the user sits in a chair and eats popcorn? Are you

Re: [TLS] WG Adoption call for draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech

I support adoption. David On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:41 PM Martin Thomson wrote: > Adopt. But please include an example, even if the public key is > 0x010203040506... > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, at 13:54, Sean Turner wrote: > > At TLS@IETF116, the sense of the room was that there was WG support

Re: [TLS] WG Adoption call for draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech

Adopt. But please include an example, even if the public key is 0x010203040506... On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, at 13:54, Sean Turner wrote: > At TLS@IETF116, the sense of the room was that there was WG support to > adopt draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech [1]. This message is to confirm the > consensus in the