And attached
Action items for the chairs are marked *in bold*
# IETF 121 (Dublin) TLS Working Group Meeting
Friday, November 8, 2024
Session II, 13:00 - 15:00
The Auditorium
## Agenda
## Working Group Items
* Administrivia - chairs (5 min)
RichS taking notes (*your name here*)
No agenda update
I agree that a bis is needed for DTLS 1.3, but I think that some of the things
that David Benjiman talked about would have been discovered, especially the
keyUpdate-related things, if there had been formal analysis of DTLS 1.3.
Please have the FATT take a look.
Russ
> On Nov 12, 2024, at 3:2
I think anyone implementing would have discovered them. The other question
which I'll try not to ask too frequently is at what point do we just point
users at QUIC?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:43 PM Russ Housley wrote:
>
> I agree that a bis is needed for DTLS 1.3, but I think that some of the
t
At IETF 121, we discussed revised DTLS 1.3, aka a draft-ietf-tls-rfc9147bis.
The chairs are proposing starting this I-D as a WG item with the existing RFC
as a base. If you object to this please let the list know by 25 November 2024.
Thanks,
Deirdre, Joe, and Sean
__
- I don't think any new "Supported Groups" that allows an ephemeral key to be
reused in more than one key-establishment in violation of SP 800-56ar3 should
be RECOMMENDED=Y. As stated by Bas, we we can't stop reuse for existing key
agreements immediately.
Sure. Of course, we can never tell if
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-super-jumbo-record-limit-00.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the
IETF.
Title: Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS with Reduced Overhead
Authors: John Preuß Mattsson
Hannes Tschofenig
Mi
Reminder that this adoption call is still on going.
spt
> On Nov 5, 2024, at 16:26, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 5, 2024, at 16:25, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>> REQUEST: Let’s not rehash all the context. It is provided for those who
>> might not remember or those that were not around fo
