Nit: we have two HPKE IDs registered. (X25519Kyber768Draft00 at KEM id
0x0030 and X-Wing at 0x647a).
Otherwise I agree with Eric and Rich.
Best,
Bas
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 2:15 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Unlike TLS itself defines cipher suites, ECH just depends on the HPKE
> registry from RF
On 11/11/2024 09:47, Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone, Vodafone wrote:
> Would it make sense to have a specific section on making ECH quantum
> safe and provide privacy also in perspective?
> IMO, no. That's mostly an issue for HPKE.
Strongly agree.
___
TLS m
Unlike TLS itself defines cipher suites, ECH just depends on the HPKE
registry from RFC 9180 (
https://www.iana.org/assignments/hpke/hpke.xhtml#hpke-aead-ids). While
there aren't currently any PQ-safe HPKE IDs registered, we do have
proposals for them (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-connoll
On 11/11/2024 09:47, Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone, Vodafone wrote:
Would it make sense to have a specific section on making ECH quantum
safe and provide privacy also in perspective?
IMO, no. That's mostly an issue for HPKE. Let's get the ECH
RFC out (so that code can be upstreamed to projects tha
Hi, not sure if this has to go under ECH or under DNS SVCB/HTTPS RR, but given
current status ECH will provide E2E privacy today , but is not Quantum Safe.
Would it make sense to have a specific section on making ECH quantum safe and
provide privacy also in perspective?
C2 General
_
=AOvVaw0ueyeUdjcs-FPnto51YIT8>
>
> --Ben Schwartz
> From: Benjamin Kaduk
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 6:26 PM
> To: Ben Schwartz
> Cc: Lucas Pardue ;
> draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech....@ietf.org ;
> tls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Re: Genart last call review of draf
-ietf-tls-svcb-ech@ietf.org
; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:37:27PM +, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>This Message Is From an External Sender
>This message came from outside your organization.
>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:37:27PM +, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>This Message Is From an External Sender
>This message came from outside your organization.
>
>On ALPNs - Yes, this is something of an open question. There are some
>hints about this in draft-ietf-tls-esni, e.g. Sec
Hey Ben,
Responding in line:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024, at 21:37, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On ALPNs - Yes, this is something of an open question. There are some hints
> about this in draft-ietf-tls-esni, e.g. Section 10.5: "A client that treats
> this context as sensitive SHOULD NOT send context-speci
On ALPNs - Yes, this is something of an open question. There are some hints
about this in draft-ietf-tls-esni, e.g. Section 10.5: "A client that treats
this context as sensitive SHOULD NOT send context-specific values in
ClientHelloOuter.".
I've occasionally wondered if we would define an ECHC
10 matches
Mail list logo
