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

Jim Schaad <> Mon, 25 November 2019 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A475212022C for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:49:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8xaSSEjxWFw for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DEC312023E for <>; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:49:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:49:33 -0800
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'TLS List' <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 20:49:30 -0800
Message-ID: <053701d5a34b$baf96980$30ec3c80$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKGwWZ6z2czDM0oXE6NgAjmueUCdaY5FIew
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 04:49:59 -0000

I believe that this is a worth while effort.  I will be willing to review
and might contribute text

-----Original Message-----
From: TLS <> On Behalf Of Sean Turner
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:36 PM
To: TLS List <>
Subject: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

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).

: 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.

Chris, Joe, and Sean

TLS mailing list