[Seat] Re: Comments on draft-fossati-seat-early-attestation-03

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 10:09 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Without going into the attacks on this proposal, Section 5.1.1 [0]
> violates the SEAT charter (*emphasis* my own):
>
> The attested (D)TLS protocol extension will not modify the (D)TLS
> protocol itself. It may define (D)TLS extensions to support its goals
> but will *not* modify, add, or remove any existing protocol messages
> or *modify the key schedule*.
>
> Following the discussion in interim meeting, please bring the draft within
> the SEAT charter, or else please propose it in the TLS WG, where such
> changes are appropriate
>

We had this discussion before, and my answer remains unchanged.

Talking about alternative approaches, and discussing whether those could be
much better suited is still within the charter. Currently, adopting such
solutions is not. I think there is great value in discussing various
approaches before the WG decides how to move forward. One such approach
_could_ be that it goes to the TLS WG for asking for an extension.

The SEAT WG needs to remain open while some of these fundamental
architectural questions are still unresolved.
The reason for people looking at intra handshake is very clear - it offers
the best abstraction of the application and the transport layer, and would
be far easier to deploy at scale, since only a few libraries would need to
implement it, instead of every single app that wants to use attestation.

It would be best if you stop trying to instruct other authors what they
should do based on your formal reading of the charter, and when in doubt,
contact your WG chairs or AD. Or raise it as a question to the list, not as
an instruction to other authors.

Thanks,

Paul