Here's an update from the chairs on the two TCPINC security protocols: While the TLS WG is hard at work on TLS 1.3, that protocol is not finished yet; the chairs believe that completion of that base protocol is a necessary prerequisite for a TCPINC profile of TLS 1.3 (e.g., as a TCPINC profile will have to normatively reference the TLS 1.3 specification). In addition, from a broader IETF perspective, completion of TLS 1.3 really does need to be the first priority for TLS experts such as Eric Rescorla.
The chairs believe that it is important to get something done promptly, and that waiting for TLS 1.3 followed by spending the time to finish a profile based on it are not consistent with that goal. We (chairs) have checked with Eric Rescorla (author of the TCPINC profile of TLS), and he supports this point of view. For these reasons, the chairs strongly suggest that the best course of action for the TCPINC WG is to move forward to standardize tcpcrypt and TCP-ENO, with a plan to allocate additional TCP-ENO codepoints for the TLS profile and possible use of TCP-ENO to negotiate application use of TLS when those protocols are ready for standardization. Please note that if tcpcrypt continues to progress faster than TCP-use-TLS, tcpcrypt would become the initial mandatory-to-implement security protocol in the TCP-ENO specification. Updated drafts have been posted to the datatracker for TCP-ENO and tcpcrypt. The chairs still intend to proceed with the expert reviews for the security and transport aspects of these drafts, and expect those reviews to complete during the month of March (i.e., results should be available prior to the Buenos Aires meeting) supporting prompt progress towards publication of both drafts as RFCs. A final WG decision on how to proceed should be made in the next few weeks, so comments on the list are welcome. Thanks, --David/Mirja/Kyle _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
