Re: Historic TLS Discussion

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Hey,

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, at 18:33, Nicholas Warren wrote:
> Nick,
>  
> I had read over the discussion from 2020 (A non-TLS standard is needed) and it sounded like TLS was an axiom of the working group.
>  
> Thank you for the quick clarification.
You might be interested in going further back to the BoF meeting at IETF96. Martin Thomson gives an overview of 
QUIC & TLS at around the 48 minute mark and addresses briefly some of the why for TLS: https://youtu.be/aGvFuvmEufs

To be clear though, it's possible to swap out TLS for something else if you to do the work. I'm aware of a few different approaches, although none have been proposed for standardization.

Cheers
Lucas
>  
> Nich Warren
>  
> *From:* Nick Harper <[e-mail]> 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2024 12:25 PM
> *To:* Nicholas Warren <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: Historic TLS Discussion
> 
>  
> 
> You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> 
> That discussion would've happened during the WG formation. That QUIC uses TLS has been in the WG charter since the first draft that I see on the datatracker, and the original approved charter calls out a key goal of "Providing always-secure transport, using TLS 1.3 by default."
>  
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:12 AM Nicholas Warren <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hello quic wg.
>>  
>> I am curious about how quic seemingly mandates usage of TLS (rfc9000 section 5); albeit I have not completely read quic-tls.
>>  
>> Does anyone remember when you all discussed this? I was hoping to go back and read the archived list from when the discussion had taken place.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Nich Warren