Re: [Uta] Proposed list of deliverables

Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2014 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51AC61A0251 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09cUL0rDC3d5 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D431E1A022A for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kp14so7882417pab.9 for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:59:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gqzo/RC30CkpM6xA6zYdueSTbTBWrYTDL0Xum+IMf60=; b=ag6mpx0kLre8BgJBVUuAwqD0yi5JjhvC80EULQxsw0aOhvXtfkGtS9CI6CQKWOScLV Nx98RMAlNJZGBAIE5Gs624j3a2FFLk871itGxtdpIB+5hNo6U9PImJBOPe8s09zLZZ6E i2s6wR8I4/hFSc4yMZrbfBYZs3Wq+4mWUy4rIbsvSxeTutSEPeZBP/DPvA1d2GtaIiq9 4H6Ohm95G1Rl38xabFyAL0PgKu/EnH4268i7O1gMmjha+Qj1znpwxDUj4lm+cOXHMVP3 aLKMvV0GeKf+83rU7H74IS9GpLpxOYzBG+cnckCuD9tK6LL793L+7NzugECh6JJpEiOH uUVA==
X-Received: by 10.68.29.72 with SMTP id i8mr31802511pbh.116.1391479152818; Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.244.237] (205.158.165.68.ptr.us.xo.net. [205.158.165.68]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ug2sm158064676pac.21.2014.02.03.17.59.10 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52F0496D.5030505@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:59:09 -0800
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Orit Levin (LCA)" <oritl@microsoft.com>, "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>
References: <0bc674da169f4772b0fb2173ed679115@BY2PR03MB300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <52EFD694.5010405@stpeter.im> <0b0789ddea34437fbf26e9b66cb9dcaf@BL2PR03MB290.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <52EFE594.4000802@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <52EFE594.4000802@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [Uta] Proposed list of deliverables
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 01:59:14 -0000

Peter, I agree with the scope you propose. Let's discuss it in our talk.

On 02/03/2014 10:53 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 2/3/14, 11:41 AM, Orit Levin (LCA) wrote:
>
>>>> 2. Applications' independent document recommending best existing
>>>> and future practices for using TLS (Likely a BCP or a Proposed
>>>> Standard RFC)
>>>
>>> I think draft-sheffer-tls-bcp is a good starting point for this
>>> deliverable.
>>>
>>
>> More specifically, section 4 of this draft "enriched" with the recent
>> discussion points and recommendations from the list.
>
> IMHO we might want to address a slightly wider range of topics, or at
> least organized the current information so it's a bit easier to find
> particular recommendations about things like certificate validation, key
> length, unauthenticated encryption, SNI, compression, session
> resumption, etc. Actually it would be good to have a list of the topics
> about which we want to have recommendations, too
>
> Peter
>