Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 24 June 2020 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lake@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A991E3A11DD for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 BZkZuF1aNXOx for <lake@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 863A53A11DC for <lake@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 05ONge1E013343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:42:42 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 16:42:40 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: lake@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200624234240.GV58278@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <89EA6A63-AB99-4649-9F08-D6FBDE1DEF2F@inria.fr> <20200624225431.GT58278@kduck.mit.edu> <cafc1dfe-8152-5d03-0b2f-0062a19fa0f9@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cafc1dfe-8152-5d03-0b2f-0062a19fa0f9@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/i34fmbfilVQiedCT0RzwxX6CMYE>
Subject: Re: [Lake] Call for adoption for draft-selander-lake-edhoc - respond by June 22
X-BeenThere: lake@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight Authenticated Key Exchange <lake.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lake/>
List-Post: <mailto:lake@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lake>, <mailto:lake-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 23:42:49 -0000

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:07:10AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I'm confused as to why this is confusing tbh;-)

Fair enough :)

> On 24/06/2020 23:54, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > So it remains unclear to me whether we are being asked to consider "should
> > we spend time to do the polishing/analysis in (2) above", or if we are
> > being asked to (implicitly) consider something like (3) above, i.e., is
> > EDHOC or cTLS a better outcome for the greater Internet ecosystem.
> 
> Let me try this way:
> 
> - TLS has adopted cTLS. That will follow IETF process
>   and turn into an RFC or not.
> - The question here is whether or not this WG wants to
>   adopt edhoc, and then follow the usual IETF process
>   which will turn that into an RFC, or not.
> 
> If this WG adopts edhoc, one or both of cTLS and edhoc
> might or might not end up as an RFC.
> 
> If the WG don't adopt edhoc, then yes, it'd be time to
> shut up shop for this WG is my guess.
> 
> It is also true that once a WG adopts a draft, it is
> quite likely to end up as an RFC, but that is not the
> question we're answering now, and is not one we can
> answer, as it requires an IETF last call etc.
> 
> Does that help?

That all sounds good, thanks.

-Ben