[TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
I support adoption of the draft, it is useful in telco networks. -Tiru On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 08:18, Sean Turner wrote: > At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS > and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2] > and [3]. The I-D has been revised a few times since IETF 119 to incorporate > list feedback. This message is to judge consensus on whether there is > support to adopt this I-D. If you support adoption and are willing to > review and contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do > not support adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and > indicate why. This call will close on November 7, 2024. > > Thanks, > Deirdre, Joe, and Sean > > [0] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit/ > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-tls-large-record-sizes-for-tls-and-dtls-00 > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZnGzqIWOkpm_F6zaqAxxtReHpVg/ > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cRH9x6nbLeAnkG-fhOS3ASDA3oU/ > ___ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org > ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
[TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
Hi, I support adoption of this draft. Regards, Valery. > Just a reminder that this adoption call is still on going. > > spt > > > On Oct 24, 2024, at 22:46, Sean Turner wrote: > > > > At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS > and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2] > and > [3]. The I-D has been revised a few times since IETF 119 to incorporate list > feedback. This message is to judge consensus on whether there is support to > adopt this I-D. If you support adoption and are willing to review and > contribute text, > please send a message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this > draft, > please send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close on > November 7, 2024. > > > > Thanks, > > Deirdre, Joe, and Sean > > > > [0] > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-tls-super-jumbo-record > > -limit/ [1] > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-tls-larg > > e-record-sizes-for-tls-and-dtls-00 > > [2] > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZnGzqIWOkpm_F6zaqAxxtReHpVg/ > > [3] > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cRH9x6nbLeAnkG-fhOS3ASDA3oU/ > > ___ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
[TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
> Just a reminder that this adoption call is still on going. I support adoption. One place I think we would use it is for links among datacenters that connect our own software. (Excuse the clumsy wording, I can never tell inter- and intra- apart) ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
[TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
I support the adoption of the draft On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 4:48 AM Sean Turner wrote: > > At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS > and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2] > and [3]. The I-D has been revised a few times since IETF 119 to incorporate > list feedback. This message is to judge consensus on whether there is support > to adopt this I-D. If you support adoption and are willing to review and > contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do not support > adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and indicate why. > This call will close on November 7, 2024. > > Thanks, > Deirdre, Joe, and Sean > > [0] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit/ > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-tls-large-record-sizes-for-tls-and-dtls-00 > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZnGzqIWOkpm_F6zaqAxxtReHpVg/ > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cRH9x6nbLeAnkG-fhOS3ASDA3oU/ > ___ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
[TLS] Re: ML-DSA in TLS
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 12:39:28PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 23/10/2024 18:29, Bas Westerbaan wrote: > > > > Unless I overlooked something, we don't have a draft out to assign a > > SignatureAlgorithm to ML-DSA for use in TLS. Nitpick: SignatureScheme. :-) (SignatureAlgorithm is from TLS 1.2.) > I don't think a gap in the set of documentation is > anywhere near a good reason to add things to TLS. For Post-Quantum authentication in TLS, ML-DSA is currently pretty much the only option: - PSKs have serious scaling issues. - SLH-DSA signature size causes performance issues. - Composite/Hybrid signatures do not seem to be even close to ready. Also, ML-DSA-87 is in CNSA 2.0, so barring a major surprise, with that algorithm it is when, not if it is added. I think the reason here for searching for existing draft is to avoid duplicate work. > I also agree with ekr that there's absolutely no real > rush here, despite what seems like vendor enthusiasm > for shiny new things. I don't think ML-DSA is shiny (despite being new). The rule of thumb in cryptography about shiny things is that unless you are into crypto research, stay away. On the other side, why wait? I do not see any open issues that would require research or experimentation to resolve. And historically PKI transitions have been very slow, so one needs plenty of time-to-CRQC. The impression I got from looking CNSA 2.0 specification was that the timelines looked pretty tight. -Ilari ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
