[TLS] CBOR Certificate Compression of RFC 7925 certificates suitable for cTLS

2020-04-03 Thread John Mattsson
Hi, During the COSE virtual interim meeting yesterday, there was agreement that the COSE working group should work on CBOR compression of RFC 7925 profiled X.509 certificates. The work will be based on draft-raza-ace-cbor-certificates and draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress and the two draft

[TLS] On the two types of ACKs in DTLS 1.3

2020-04-03 Thread Hanno Becker
Hi all, I am aware that we're late into the standardization of DTLS 1.3, and likely too late for any intrusive change, but I'd still like to share another comment on the proposed ACKing scheme and its implication on complexity of migration from DTLS 1.2 to DTLS 1.3, in addition to the aspect discu

Re: [TLS] CBOR Certificate Compression of RFC 7925 certificates suitable for cTLS

2020-04-03 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi John, Thanks for the heads-up. Discussing this aspect in draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-01 makes sense. I was wondering whether you have been working on an implementation of draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress-00 / draft-raza-ace-cbor-certificates-04. Ciao Hannes -Original Messa

[TLS] Efficiency of ACKing scheme

2020-04-03 Thread Hanno Becker
Hi again, The DTLS 1.3 ACKing scheme seems to be quite inefficient as it is written, and I wonder if the current spec matches the authors' intentions. Example: Consider a flight broken down as sequence of records 1, 2, .., N. Assume record 2 gets dropped, while all other records go through witho

Re: [TLS] Efficiency of ACKing scheme

2020-04-03 Thread Hanno Becker
An additional note: All solutions which retain the paragraph Upon receipt of an ACK for only some messages from a flight, an implementation SHOULD retransmit the remaining messages or fragments. and hence trigger retransmission immediately upon receiving a partial ACK, suffer from the f

Re: [TLS] Virtual TLS Interim Meeting

2020-04-03 Thread Joseph Salowey
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 7:54 PM Joseph Salowey wrote: > The chairs think it would be good to schedule a virtual TLS interim > focused on ECHO and also have a readout from the PSK design team. We have > some dates that the IESG has recommended for us. The proposal is: > > 1900 - 2100 UTC

[TLS] tls - New Interim Meeting Request

2020-04-03 Thread IETF Meeting Session Request Tool
A new interim meeting request has just been submitted by Joseph Salowey. This request requires approval by the Area Director of the Security Area The meeting can be approved here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim/request/interim-2020-tls-01 --

[TLS] Transport Layer Security (tls) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-04-27

2020-04-03 Thread IESG Secretary
The Transport Layer Security (tls) Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on 2020-04-27 from 12:00 to 14:00 America/Los_Angeles (19:00 to 21:00 UTC). Agenda: 1. Administrivia and agenda bashing 2. ECHO 3. PSK design team readout Information about remote participation: Remote participa

Re: [TLS] Virtual TLS Interim Meeting

2020-04-03 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hi Joe, Pre-agenda bashing question for chairs and authors of the ESNI/ECHO draft... I'd like to try again to suggest simplifications for ECHOConfig (e.g. no extensions, just one public key per RR VALUE etc.) and perhaps also some more rules constraining inner/outer CH variances. How would you