[Dots] DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 16 August 2018 13:39 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF914131065 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=1.506, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xvmuYDR-5Lbt for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta134.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4EC3131011 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 06:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.71]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 41rnVm3BF2z1ysm; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:39:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.21]) by opfednr07.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 41rnVm29cFzFpWj; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:39:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d9f5:9741:7525:a199%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0408.000; Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:39:12 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Benjamin Kaduk (kaduk@mit.edu)" <kaduk@mit.edu>
CC: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3
Thread-Index: AdQ1ZoOh6UQyP3awRx62WRzNq6X9DA==
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:39:12 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFAAD17@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFAAD17OPEXCLILMA3corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/-VafSjkSuxLDVbywXBky0qr2eWo>
Subject: [Dots] DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 13:39:21 -0000
Hi Benjamin, Now that RFC8446 is out and given that it obsoletes RFC5246, we need your advice on how to proceed to (hopefully) avoid breaking existing implementations while still encouraging for TLS 1.3. FWIW, the current situation is as follows: * Existing DOTS implementations relies on TLS 1.2. * The signal channel draft mandates TLS 1.2 or later. * The signal channel draft specifies a profile for (D)TLS 1.3. (DTLS 1.3 is still a draft) Would it be OK if we maintain the current wording in the draft as it with some minor changes? (that is, only update TLS1.3 ID to RFC8446, remove reference to RFC5077, maintain RFC5246) Thank you. Cheers, Med
- [Dots] DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Dots] DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3 Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Dots] DOTS: TLS 1.2 & TLS1.3 Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy