Re: [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 07 February 2020 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webtransport@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0C812029C; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 06:58:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 7CKbUQMAZ-0C; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 06:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com (mail-io1-f44.google.com [209.85.166.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B98F12008A; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 06:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id z193so2511532iof.1; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 06:58:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TM/BxdC4LUWEbs91DobsgWhl7kcFKnLJKy8xuSbCdY4=; b=rB4NgfFAuO0yXPbTN1muXK5ofgQfB4ZAzQimg+TTh0LeoJ3TChMXP1F57ZsGo+AhBj W0IAKNCBFWLZiuHv2yuBmY8UmCBAONgnxY3Tg7WMZrOuSHlaxHWJnMPkaq0z0y4HLCB8 zf9hR2xbpHpbcELxmHWWXntZluYv2NPvpUCxkW49myHSbENvtAaHSHPR07ig9JBEXqMW DFS9rpWAzPKdf30eyGYG6Ij5CfVpRH2m1Eut+CrdT6pJAN8261XkN98XJ9SmAyPgw6TJ nUSKVHPfabJEmBqYBFwKJPVDT+4fRjs4vcQwsiOosdukzA/IwhbHleTubjHMP2DU0DBE Z3yg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXnwKTGuAdBpeOvOC5R8iJeutJwQ/csC5EGVRoO0rfXc5qrDU4a mYZuiJOLYpi2ZSF/AXEJN2ApT2x6NqdXWmbUtGyaUfpQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyF9ch5jhZFPTAcHSCGNMtjNeR+gsHwgTKOEfLrSezFQ9BsIlRo06LAdfSkMdvA8PlZGZnBxq5iu9nEeOgtyuM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9ed4:: with SMTP id a20mr3271472ioe.187.1581087482266; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 06:58:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158100171009.8530.1367848640419613812.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPDSy+5nL0_v3OEmtv+-NT26pPLD55gsKw+g2xkaGv3AsoJhkQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5nL0_v3OEmtv+-NT26pPLD55gsKw+g2xkaGv3AsoJhkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 09:57:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJLA-zewOBZJ5K0cgj73GEoHww2KFo8r726xWO_KZEowsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, webtrans-chairs@ietf.org, WebTransport <webtransport@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webtransport/ZSZgif8sYyLRjC9asQJjpBU1ujE>
Subject: Re: [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: webtransport@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <webtransport.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webtransport>, <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webtransport/>
List-Post: <mailto:webtransport@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport>, <mailto:webtransport-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 14:58:04 -0000
>> Do we have a target security level (e.g., "the same as HTTPS with TLS 1.3") >> that we want this work to provide? > > Since we'll be using existing transport/security protocols (QUIC or TLS/TCP), > we will derive our security level from what they provide. > - QUIC provides the same level as HTTPS over TLS 1.3 > - TLS/TCP provides as much as the version of TLS in use. > The working group might decide to require TLS 1.3 or greater > when defining anything over TLS/TCP, but I don't think we need that > in the charter? I agree that we don't need it in the charter. The chairs are certainly aware of the situation, and if I document came out that, say, suggested 1.1, I'm sure the Sec ADs would DISCUSS that. Barry
- [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on c… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection … David Schinazi
- Re: [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection … Barry Leiba