IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS]Re: Adoption call for Extended Key Update for TLS 1.3

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 03 August 2024 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0DEC157937 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 8NrLn7nvS8Zp for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E6EC15108C for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:25:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.15.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 4735P6AL021492 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1722662719; x=1722749119; i=@elandsys.com; bh=kA3BpNFt+bTN1m9SLULqxgT8+3JYaasB/mJu+0ZwtRs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=JlMkl5ISZbbFaKAMp+cJx3B4WR7ySiB57wst6QVvCT2YdLd2qlyx7vPeiIznLruWy KoV93rQdiSSqZiT37JAVXin1deBOj9LmukgX0lm1uUT1cbfypH5iXpYGoAV+E9QQYY pOKOPCLROCerx9yNnznvsfzYsxhUY09td7J0t/PE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20240802215738.0ec05478@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:18:14 -0700
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, tls@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <595B81B5-6E50-4809-AD56-8646F31C99CD@sn3rd.com>
References: <595B81B5-6E50-4809-AD56-8646F31C99CD@sn3rd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID-Hash: HQDI3POCZRLLTIP3A6HDZ5HM6KBXVEOQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: HQDI3POCZRLLTIP3A6HDZ5HM6KBXVEOQ
X-MailFrom: sm@elandsys.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS]Re: Adoption call for Extended Key Update for TLS 1.3
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/DauAPV4q7txixOe_2BCF7vW-1qI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Sean,
At 09:39 AM 25-07-2024, Sean Turner wrote:
>At the IETF 120 TLS session there was interest in adopting the 
>Extended Key Update for TLS 1.3 I-D 
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tschofenig-tls-extended-key-update/). 
>This message starts a two-week call for adoption. If you support 
>adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send 
>a message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this I-D, 
>please send a message to the list and indicate why.

There is an enthusiastic discussion on a well-established mailing 
list on what to do with STD 8.  Meanwhile, the TLS working group is 
considering the adoption of a draft to document a debugging 
feature.  Between you and I, it does not sound like a good idea to go 
down that path.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status