TLS 1.1/1.2 impact on applications protocols

Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM> Tue, 30 January 2007 04:38 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBkl6-0002XU-Fk; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:38:16 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBkl5-0002XP-05 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:38:15 -0500
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBkl3-0003PN-G4 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:38:14 -0500
Received: from fe-amer-04.sun.com ([192.18.108.178]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l0U4cCkq014945 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:38:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0JCN00F01XZ8TO00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Chris.Newman@Sun.COM) for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:38:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [10.1.110.5] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0JCN00ABAZJMGE00@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:38:12 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:38:09 -0800
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
Subject: TLS 1.1/1.2 impact on applications protocols
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Message-id: <DD5C1C952BE6B88FBB571B04@[10.1.110.5]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Mac OS X)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: Pasi Eronen <pasi.eronen@nokia.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

The changes that are happening in the TLS WG with the publication of TLS 1.1 
and the upcoming TLS 1.2 do have a significant impact on application 
deployment.  Many of our application protocols make TLS 1.0 
mandatory-to-implement.  I'd like to see a discussion of the importance of 
transition to 1.2 (when it comes out) and the real-world problems that might 
occur.  Do we need to update our application protocol specifications to mandate 
the newer version?  Or perhaps we need an app-area RFC which does that to a set 
of application protocols?

Can we just have a blanket exception to the standards status 
(proposed/draft/full) reference rules for the TLS base spec (and trust the TLS 
WG to do the right thing)?  It seems more important to keep up-to-date on 
security technology than to have normative reference purity.

Perhaps this would be a good topic for the Prague apparea meeting?

                - Chris