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

Hi Daniel

Although inappropriate to discuss at the time of the adoption call I wanted to point out that I looked at SCHC and was surprised to learn that it is more than a compression scheme but also includes a protocol for adding reliability. In my reading is essentially a replacement for 6lowpan. Unfortunately, this design decision does not make it a well suited mechanism for a generic compression mechanism. I am happy to get convinced otherwise. 

Ciao

Hannes

From: TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Migault
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 10:20 AM
To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>
Cc: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

I clearly support the adoption of the work, but it seems important to ensure cTLS integrates or remains in line with the work on compression that has been accomplished at the IETF - SCHC defined in lpwan might be a starting point. It also seems important to me that cTLS defines mechanisms that could be reused as TLS 1.3 evolves.

Yours, 

Daniel

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:39 AM Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com <mailto:pkampana@cisco.com> > wrote:

+1, support adoption.

From: TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org> > On Behalf Of Dmitry Belyavsky
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:46 AM
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com> >
Cc: TLS List <tls@ietf.org <mailto:tls@ietf.org> >
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-rescorla-tls-ctls

I support the adoption.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:36 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com <mailto: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 <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

-- 

SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls