IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Historic TLS Discussion

Nick Harper <ietf@nharper.org> Mon, 22 January 2024 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <nharper@nharper.org>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70138C151980 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cUHu23vflF9 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f44.google.com (mail-ej1-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11618C15155C for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-f44.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a30a99c4609so5423866b.3 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705947886; x=1706552686; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=oMpGbBBfN6kfj28iRk7FpxmFqCzVrOOeQ66FaDvnXAo=; b=C/3ZZPdJjwYdfTJzQF+z/VHLLmSCfA7tUBjw74Io8Y3K++J5Rk9boQGCAMb0ibnuwC hcdJSy2JZ0mj+n4HiwkMBy42ii2ubfQH43dsqOltqzzl8gRbreEdVop8VJ5P0wuMnlzl r16SYBlsfGV6iJkH/RCr/NWXBYZJsVPDV2+6jX8RlviglyRxfxpLMMfsTwk3heTJ7Ibt RdSUUMU4y+zyM/XzlqL+WAys5j1T+gve0GqSaaAX5U+dToUyaUxn1ufGzfY3HZlJ+bHu IYqeOyZBo+Bs6wB57mYaLNe8NpGlmp9qNvXpet/9DLtkH7pWWmGH8oBUZPvB8o611ape AE7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YybkpsBtRfm+5qLXPA9qi4WhmqBAjq1BHDy4zzZeZOzBHuHqxc7 XKCGxJ58ROCcZzt53fOzSNdACp+4iIcQ21AiYkJzg3VGb/0Yr3YfpVu8sPQ7fEZt71yK6caANIQ C7XToCBqQUjp8EBZsb/U6W/+N/DaoMHdWRRq+AWO/sin3n6514fY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHF5BZ53dkcApUKxJB14ZnDAtLnaKvfybJ44htJYv06H8s+Al0ZCgXicGgZG4964nRgKHyuPuwrSXO5+SJDumA=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:8694:b0:a2f:f39:d36e with SMTP id qa20-20020a170907869400b00a2f0f39d36emr2926097ejc.62.1705947886129; Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SA1PR04MB8561BABF161D2CF980526E56BF752@SA1PR04MB8561.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <SA1PR04MB8561BABF161D2CF980526E56BF752@SA1PR04MB8561.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nick Harper <ietf@nharper.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:24:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CACcvr==ik5+A-b5E2VsQGU4k42U7oAsJKNdaKXMANWY11Ae-4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Historic TLS Discussion
To: Nicholas Warren <nwarren@barryelectric.com>
Cc: "quic@ietf.org" <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c2283d060f8cf1f4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/p9Bw6SZoBsZaJqe9qgdtVSklpNs>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:24:48 -0000

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 <nwarren@barryelectric.com>
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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email