Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3

Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net> Tue, 12 November 2013 17:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJU7zaJrMKP03qnYJ5FdrAxZNf6g6bRycXzOY4cUgmF_HvbJVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJU7zaJrMKP03qnYJ5FdrAxZNf6g6bRycXzOY4cUgmF_HvbJVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:52:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGZ8ZG0encNJn_G_32LB9=ovRt4dEQpm0q2CBbq=2D0Re2vv4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3
Precedence: list

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
<nmav@gnutls.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>  Having seen the current discussion for TLS 1.3, I have some proposal.
> Since the changes requested are large, I'd suggest not to design TLS 1.3
> in this working group. I'd suggest this working group to set the specs
> for the next TLS version (and better name it 2.0), and then announce a
> competition for the initial draft of the protocol.

Agree with Nikos.

There's a lot of interrelated technical issues, and some different
strategies that could be taken.

Having the WG make all these decisions seems likely to produce a
disjointed, frankenstein protocol.  It would be better to have a few
groups producing coherent proposals.

There are proposals already floating around (QUIC, MinimaLT, EKR's),
and we've seen increasing academic interest here (Kenny Paterson,
others), so it seems likely we could get some good designs and
comparative analysis.

Trevor

[TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Yoav Nir
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Yaron Sheffer
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Alex Elsayed
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Hannes Tschofenig
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Paul Hoffman
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
Re: [TLS] a proposal for TLS 1.3 Trevor Perrin