Re: [TLS] TLS Charter Revision

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen

I suggest "better confidentiality". "Privacy" applies to humans, not 
machines. I don't think it's appropriate for a machine-2-machine 
protocol like TLS.

On 10/12/13 10:59 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Joe
>
> Wouid it be reasonable to add a "better privacy" goal for the tls 1.3 work?
>
> Ta
> S
>
>
> "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Updated Charter text based on the discussion so far is below.  Changes:
>>
>>
>> 1. Fixed typos
>> 2. Third bullet to "Update record payload protection cryptographic
>> mechanisms and algorithms to address known weaknesses
>> in the CBC block cipher modes and to replace RC4."
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> The TLS (Transport Layer Security) working group was
>> established in 1996 to standardize a 'transport layer'
>> security protocol.  The basis for the work was SSL
>> (Secure Socket Layer) v3.0.  The TLS working group has
>> completed a series of specifications that describe the
>> TLS protocol v1.0, v1.1, and v1.2 and DTLS
>> (Datagram TLS) v1.2 as well as extensions to the
>> protocols and ciphersuites.
>>
>> The primary purpose of the working group is to develop
>> (D)TLS v1.3.  Some of the main design goals are as follows,
>> in no particular order:
>>
>> o Develop a mode that encrypts as much of the handshake as
>> is possible to reduce the amount of observable data to
>> both passive and active attackers.
>>
>> o Develop modes to reduce handshake latency, which primarily
>> support HTTP-based applications, aiming for one roundtrip
>> for a full handshake and one or zero roundtrip for repeated
>> handshakes.
>>
>> o Update record payload protection cryptographic
>> mechanisms and algorithms to address known weaknesses
>> in the CBC block cipher modes and to replace RC4.
>>
>> o Reevaluate handshake contents, e.g.,: Is time needed in
>> client hello?  Should signature in server key exchange
>> cover entire handshake?  Are bigger randoms required?
>> Should there be distinct cipher list for each version?
>>
>> A secondary purpose is to maintain previous version of
>> the (D)TLS protocols as well as to specify the use of
>> (D)TLS, recommendations for use of (D)TLS, extensions to
>> (D)TLS, and cipher suites.  However, changes or additions
>> to older versions of (D)TLS whether via extensions or
>> ciphersuites are discouraged and require significant
>> justification to be taken on as work items.
>>
>> With these objectives in mind, the TLS WG will also place a priority
>> in minimizing gratuitous changes to TLS.
>>
>> Milestone/Dates:
>>
>> 201311 - Out-of-Band Public Key Validation for TLS to IESG
>> 201401 - Secure Password Ciphersuites for TLS to IESG
>> 201404 - TLS ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation)
>>       Extension to IESG
>> 201411 - (D)TLS 1.3 to IESG
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls