[TLS] Re: Adoption Call for Trust Anchor IDs

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

I read both drafts and oppose adoption. I think Dennis'
draft contains good arguments against doing this, and
separately, I think we'd be better off devoting effort
towards efforts that go beyond, rather than fiddle-with,
X.509, so that there's some chance of not needing 50
year old X.509 code in a decade or two.

Cheers,
S.

On 15/01/2025 15:59, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> At the trust tussle Interim in October we had consensus that the working
> group was interested in working on the following problem:
> 
> “Avoid client trust conflicts by enabling servers to reliably and
> efficiently support clients with diverse trust anchor lists, particularly
> in larger PKIs where the existing certificate_authorities extension is not
> viable”
> 
> After IETF 121, we asked for submissions for possible working group
> adoption as a starting point for this work. We received two submissions:
> 
> [1] Trust Anchor Identifiers, draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids-03
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beck-tls-trust-anchor-ids/>
> 
> [2] Trust is non-negotiable, draft-jackson-tls-trust-is-nonnegotiable-00
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jackson-tls-trust-is-nonnegotiable/>
> 
> [1] defines a new protocol mechanism, while [2] provides an explanation of
> why the mechanism in [1] may not be needed and may be problematic. Since
> the second draft does not define a protocol mechanism we are not
> considering it for adoption, but we request that working group members
> review both documents and use [2] as input into determining whether we
> should adopt [1] as a working group item.  Adoption as a working group item
> means the working group has change control over and can modify it as
> necessary; an adopted document is only a starting point.  Please respond to
> this thread if you think the document should be adopted as a working group
> item. If you think the document is not appropriate for adoption please
> indicate why.  This adoption call will close on February 7, 2025.  Also
> please remember to maintain professional behavior and keep the discussion
> focused on technical issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Sean, Deirdre and Joe
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]