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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

The adoption call ended on Friday.  There is support for adopting and working on this draft as a WG item.  A few thought the draft could/should be split into different drafts, but the chairs believe we can split the drafts later if that is the consensus of the WG.

NOTE: Technically, we will formally adopt this draft (i.e., push the buttons in the datatracker) once the WG re-charter process completes successfully.

Thanks,

> On Nov 21, 2019, at 00:36, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> 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