Hi all,I've rolled out an update mainly summarizing the discussion on the following 2 topics in the other thread:
1. Contacting FATT: mailing list (Sec. 3.3 and 4.2) 2. ML-KEM: FATT review (Sec. 3.2 and 4.1) To keep discussions organized, I'd request: For discussion of #1, preferably please use the sub-thread: [0] For discussion of #2, preferably please use the sub-thread: [1]I understand there are several open areas for improvement in the current text (issue on Ekr's feedback is still open), but I would appreciate the WG's focus on these two specific points, and lead them to some conclusion before jumping to other topics.
I am particularly looking for opinions of FATT on #1. Thank you for the feedback. Best regards, -Usama [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/7lj6fYAweMBwNMxFerNl7xhY0pk/ [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/yWSZfeVE82xvtL3kPiGXEpsfUMU/ -------- Forwarded Message --------Subject: New Version Notification for draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.txt
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 07:26:31 -0700 From: [email protected]To: Muhammad Sardar <[email protected]>, Muhammad Usama Sardar <[email protected]>
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.txt has been
successfully submitted by Muhammad Usama Sardar and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension Revision: 06 Title: Extensions to TLS FATT Process Date: 2026-04-26 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 19 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension/ HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.htmlHTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06
Abstract: This document applies only to non-trivial extensions of TLS, which require formal analysis. It proposes the authors specify a threat model and informal security goals in the Security Considerations section, as well as motivation and a protocol diagram in the draft. We also briefly present a few pain points of the team doing the formal analysis which -- we believe -- require refining the process: * Provide protection against FATT-bypass by other TLS-related WGs * Contacting FATT * ML-KEM * Understanding the opposing goals * Response within reasonable time frame The IETF Secretariat
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
