Hello,
We’ve just posted two new documents that start addressing how to incorporate
security protocols into the TAPS framework for use alongside transport
protocols. At the meeting in Chicago, the question of how security protocols
should be handled was brought up, and we suggested writing a draft to do a
survey of Transport Security protocols, similar to the work done in RFC 8095
and the transport usage drafts. This document goes over several common
transport security protocols and analyzes their features and interfaces,
particularly with regards to how they interact with their associated transport
protocols and applications.
A Survey of Transport Security Protocols
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-taps-transport-security-00
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-taps-transport-security-00>
The second document is an update of a draft that Mirja published earlier this
year, which we would also like to bring into TAPS. This document takes a more
normative approach, and suggests that transport security protocols should allow
separation of the handshake and record protocols (similar to what QUIC does).
This approach has an effect on the interaction between the security and
transport layers, and adds some protocol-flexibility properties that complement
the TAPS approach.
Separating Crypto Negotiation and Communication
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-taps-crypto-sep-00
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kuehlewind-taps-crypto-sep-00>
Best,
Tommy
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
