[TLS]Re: Discussions on Trust Anchor Negotiation at IETF 120

[Dennis Jackson <[e-mail]>]

On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:

> I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion, 
> over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good 
> mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it 
> would benefit from an interim.

The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks ago, 
received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting and has a lot 
of unaddressed issues.

I feel that if the authors had chosen to focus their presentation on 
their new draft, rather than splitting their time slot with Trust 
Expressions, there would have been much more time for discussion at the 
end of the meeting.

As I noted, many participants in the meeting expressed a preference for 
an interim so I would be surprised if there was support for adoption. 
Especially as the concerns I want to present are fundamental to the 
design rather than about issues which could be addressed later.

However, I'm sure the chairs will gauge how close we are to a rough 
consensus on adoption based on their own conversations with the other WG 
participants.

> PQ TLS on the other hand has a lot of open questions about things like 
> different variants of Merkle Tree Certificates that I would love to 
> flesh out further. If we want an interim, we should focus on that 
> question, and leave trust anchors out of the discussion, in my 
> opinion, moving them towards adoption instead of drawing out the 
> process even longer.

I agree the scope of PQ TLS is much wider and will also need some 
substantial time to discuss. I think the first job will be figuring out 
problems we're trying to solve and our requirements, but I'm excited to 
talk about the different variants of MTC as well.

Best,
Dennis