[TLS] Re: FATT membership

Yes we need to do this. On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 1:44 PM Salz, Rich wrote: > I just watched the video and was taken aback that on an interim about the > FATT process, neither Sean nor Dierdre knew how big it was, let alone who > the members are, although “a couple of suggestions have been received.

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On 21/10/2024 20:37, Deirdre Connolly wrote: Yes, the updated proposal at the interim describes how all participants in any document triage sign on to the recommendation / triage (or lack thereof). Sorry to be pernickity, but does "sign on" mean we get to know who made what comments? Or that

[TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-06.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF. Title: Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings Authors: Ben Schwartz Mike Bishop Erik Nygren Name:

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On 21/10/2024 20:50, Deirdre Connolly wrote: The proposal discussed at the interim involves the Liaison role OK, I'll wait to see the minutes and the written proposal so. ("Liaising" being an IAB thing, it'll be better to see that text before discussing meaning to avoid repetition/confusion:

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

Ah if that's an overloaded term we can use another word On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 3:55 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 21/10/2024 20:50, Deirdre Connolly wrote: > > The proposal discussed at the interim involves the Liaison role > > OK, I'll wait to see the minutes and the written proposal so. >

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

I want to be clear that the output of the FATT is not 'design' as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> The term "design" is just what RFC 2418 uses. If the input from such a group can influence the protocol, it seems to match the exact text from the RFC: "formal set of expert volunteers". Ah, I missed that part, thanks! OK good, we may have reversed engineered a thing from 20 years ago :D On Mo

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> Yes, the whole FATT at that time participated It should have been better to repeat the list, since there were five weeks (and many emails) between the announcement and that summary. But that could be seen as nit. I still believe you overstated the situation. But I apologize. * If during

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 3:23 PM Watson Ladd wrote: > > Furthermore, as I understand the rational for FATT it's that people > don't feel comfortable participating in the WG. That's a shame, and we > should also try to fix it. The rationale for not participating in the WG can be bad, though. >

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 10:46 AM Salz, Rich wrote: > > > If the FATT process still has anonymous reviewers, IMO it is > > still broken. > > I had a personal conflict so could only attend the last few minutes of the > meeting but I just watched the video. > > I strongly agree with Stephen's opinio

[TLS] Missing minutes for interim meeting (was: Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process))

Hi Deirdre, Joseph, Sean , At 06:30 PM 17-10-2024, Sean Turner wrote: Whoops - Corrected! spt > On Oct 17, 2024, at 17:14, Russ Housley wrote: > > The minutes have not been posted to that page yet. > > Russ > >> On Oct 17, 2024, at 2:24 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >> >> Hi! We had a quick (45min)

[TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ech-keylogfile-01.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-ech-keylogfile-01.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF. Title: SSLKEYLOGFILE Extension for Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) Authors: Yaroslav Rosomakho Hannes Tschofenig Name:draft-ietf-tls

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> If the FATT process still has anonymous reviewers, IMO it is > still broken. I had a personal conflict so could only attend the last few minutes of the meeting but I just watched the video. I strongly agree with Stephen's opinion quoted above. This particular issue has been raised MANY times

[TLS] FATT membership

I just watched the video and was taken aback that on an interim about the FATT process, neither Sean nor Dierdre knew how big it was, let alone who the members are, although “a couple of suggestions have been received.” Please create file that lists the FATT members and is widely reachable. For

[TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] DTLS 1.3 PSK binders vs DTLS 1.2 HelloVerifyRequest

* Are there any DTLS 1.2 implementations that bind the whole ClientHello? Schannel binds the entire ClientHello (obviously, excluding the cookie itself). Cheers, Andrei From: David Benjamin Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 12:39 PM To: Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] DTLS 1.3 PSK binders vs DTLS

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

Those guidelines may be useful to us, thanks for the link. I want to be clear that the output of the FATT is not 'design' as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/, as the FATT may include experts that do not participate in the working group generall

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, including what > has happened already. Not true. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vK2N0vr83W6YlBQMIaVr9TeHzu4/ ("Here is a summary across all participants"). > All decisions about how to block, evolve, last ca

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> Here is a summary across all participants"). Yes, the whole FATT at that time participated > if the WG consensus is to not take the advice of the panel, then that will be part of the shepherd writeup, including an explanation. If during the work of the working group for a document we got a tr

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 1:46 PM Deirdre Connolly wrote: > Those guidelines may be useful to us, thanks for the link. > > I want to be clear that the output of the FATT is not 'design' as > described in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-on-design-teams-20011221/, > as the FATT may

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

Hiya, On 21/10/2024 18:43, Salz, Rich wrote: Why not have a consensus call? It's not clear to me that the IETF process allows WG chairs or a WG to grant power to anonymous reviewers. Doing so would be a BIG change and e.g. would allow those who might favour specific gov or company or NGO po

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, including what has happened already. All decisions about how to block, evolve, last call, whatever is up to working group consensus. On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 3:09 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 21/10/2024 18:43, Salz, Rich w

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

The proposal discussed at the interim involves the Liaison role and the triage report(s) being a consensus opinion from whichever FATT members participate with their names signed. All WG activity has always been non-blocked on FATT input, and hinges entirely on working group consensus to do anythi

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On 21/10/2024 20:28, Deirdre Connolly wrote: All discourse between the FATT and the WG has names attached, including what has happened already. Earlier Joe said: "The current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT feedback to specific individuals." Has that

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

Yes, the updated proposal at the interim describes how all participants in any document triage sign on to the recommendation / triage (or lack thereof). The WG can decide to block the WGLC or any other document work based on the recommendations being fulfilled, or not. On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, 3:34 P

[TLS] DTLS 1.3 PSK binders vs DTLS 1.2 HelloVerifyRequest

Hi all, Nick noticed a fun (almost?) conflict between DTLS 1.3 PSK binders and DTLS 1.2 HelloVerifyRequest: A DTLS 1.2+1.3 client, in possession of a DTLS 1.3 PSK, will send a ClientHello with a PSK binder. The server, however, may have since rolled back DTLS 1.3 support and then might negotiate

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process

On 23.09.24 18:05, Sean Turner wrote: We are still working out the proposal, but we would like to get this meeting scheduled to review any feedback / comments once we do post the process. Lets take a step back. The promise was to post the process before having an interim. I would really lik

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

> I'd argue that the idea of anonymous reviewers with direct influence over the IETF process is basically anathema. As some who has recently read 2026 and 2418, and the dozens of drafts and errata that updated them, multiple times[1], I agree. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rsalz-202

[TLS] Re: TLS WG Interim summary (was Re: TLS WG Virtual Interim on FATT Process)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 1:14 PM Deirdre Connolly wrote: > Ah if that's an overloaded term we can use another word > I think what you have here is a way to quickly appoint a "Design Team". That's fine. The general WG mailing list may not be appropriate for formal analysis discussion. But I think

[TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-extended-key-update-03.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-extended-key-update-03.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF. Title: Extended Key Update for Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 Authors: Hannes Tschofenig Michael Tüxen Tirumaleswar

[TLS] Re: DTLS 1.3 PSK binders vs DTLS 1.2 HelloVerifyRequest

Hi David, the hello extensions have been removed from calculating the cookie in Eclipse/tinydtls and Eclipse/Californium (both DTLS 1.2) at the begin of this year See https://github.com/eclipse/tinydtls/pull/223 for more details. br Achim Am 21.10.24 um 21:39 schrieb David Benjamin: Hi all,