Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

I also support adoption.

On the question of how the work should be factored: It is true that this
work comprises 3-4 fairly separable technologies.  However, they have in
common that they need to be pre-agreed between the client and server
(except possibly the "known certificates" mechanism, which could possibly
be negotiated with ClientHello/ServerHello extensions).  So my inclination
would be to push forward with this work as a unified package, and consider
later whether certain mechanisms are separable.

--Richard

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:48 PM Ben Schwartz <bemasc=
40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I support adoption.
>
> In the spirit of Ted Hardie's comment on dividing the work into pieces,
> I'd like to suggest putting the handshake compression into a separate draft
> from the certificate compression.  Certificate compression could be made
> into an extension that is usable in standard TLS. cTLS can then use it for
> free with extension monomorphization.
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:38 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>> I support adoption.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:36 PM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At IETF 105, ekr presented cTLS (Compact TLS) [0][1][2] to both the TLS
>>> WG and the LAKE BOF, which is now a chartered WG [3].  After some
>>> discussions, the ADs suggested [4] that the TLS WG consider whether this
>>> draft be adopted as a TLS WG item. LAKE could then later
>>> specify/refer/adopt/profile it, as appropriate.. The authors revised cTLS
>>> and presented the revised draft at IETF 106 [5].  At IETF 106 there was
>>> support for adoption of cTLS as a WG item..  To confirm this on the list:
>>> if you believe that the TLS WG should not adopt this as a WG item, then
>>> please let the chairs know by posting a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC
>>> 13 December 2019 (and say why).
>>>
>>> NOTE:
>>> : If the consensus is that this draft should be adopted as a WG item,
>>> then this will necessarily result in a WG rechartering discussions.  We
>>> would have gotten to this rechartering discussion anyway now that DTLS 1.3
>>> is progressing out of the WG.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris, Joe, and Sean
>>>
>>> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-105-tls-sessa-ctls/
>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/
>>> [2] https://github.com/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls
>>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rescorla-tls-ctls/
>>> [4]
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/kACwW7PXrmTRa4PvXQ0TA34xCvk
>>> [5]
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-tls-compact-tls-13-00.pdf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list
>>> TLS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>