[Uta] draft-reddy-uta-pqc-ap

Hi Alan, Hi Valery, The adoption of draft-reddy-uta-pqc-ap was previously deferred due to the observation that the TLS working group had not yet adopted post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms for use with TLS. In the meantime, the situation has evolved: several drafts have now been adop

[Uta] draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-12.txt

Hi all, over the past few months, Thomas, Michael, and I have been working to resolve the open issues in the draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile. If you would like to include examples, such as various certificate types in the appendix, we would appreciate your assistance in developing them. Otherwis

[Uta] Re: Shepherd questions for draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile : IPR and autorship

I am not aware of IPRs regarding this document. Authorship: I confirm. Am 03.12.2024 um 14:42 schrieb Michael Richardson: Renzo Navas wrote: > 1. [IPR] Can you please individually confirm that you have > declared/complied with the IPR disclosure obligations described in BCP > 7

[Uta] draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-01

During the IETF UTA session I volunteered to review draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-01. Here are my notes: Abstract It might be good to say something about syslog in the first paragraph and then in a second paragraph talk about the updates in the draft. For example, "

Re: [Uta] comments on draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-04:

Hi Michael, Thanks for your review. Let me provide you my remarks below. -Original Message- From: Michael Richardson Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2022 1:42 PM To: uta@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org; iot...@ietf.org Cc: Hannes Tschofenig Subject: comments on draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-04

Re: [Uta] OCSP in RFC7525bis

, January 20, 2022 3:18 PM To: Hannes Tschofenig ; uta@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org Subject: Re: OCSP in RFC7525bis Hi Hannes, This is not about my personal beliefs. RFC 7525 looks at certificate revocation in the context of TLS (and not only TLS for Web use but the broader ecosystem) and recommends

Re: [Uta] OCSP in RFC7525bis

Hi Yaron, Where do you believe OCSP will be a good fit and why? Ciao Hannes From: TLS On Behalf Of Yaron Sheffer Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:57 PM To: uta@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org Subject: [TLS] OCSP in RFC7525bis Hi, RFC 7525 (the TLS BCP) has a section [1] with “weak” recommendations

[Uta] TLS Implementation Status for IoT

Hi all, working on draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile, Thomas and I have been looking at the implementation status of TLS/DTLS extensions on embedded devices. Here is what we found out looking at various popular stacks. There are lots of features in prototype status and we have not taken those in

[Uta] Client Certificates in RFC 7925

Hi all, I wanted to bring up another topic that may need to be clarified in draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-04 RFC 7925 says the following about client certificates: "4.4.2. Certificates Used by Clients For client certificates, the i

Re: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-04

Hi Ekr, Hi Martin, Thanks for support. The algorithm selection (specifically the topic of CCM_8 vs. plain CCM) is something to debate. Ciao Hannes From: Eric Rescorla Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 7:50 PM To: Valery Smyslov Cc: uta@ietf.org; uta-cha...@ietf.org; Hannes Tschofenig ; Thomas

Re: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-04

Hi Loganaden, > I support adoption and i'm willing to review. Thanks for your support and your willingness to review the spec. Ciao Hannes IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, pleas

Re: [Uta] Adoption call for draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-04

aterials/slides-interim-2020-uta-01-sessa-tlsdtls-profiles-for-the-internet-of-things -Original Message- From: Valery Smyslov Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 9:53 AM To: uta@ietf.org Cc: uta-cha...@ietf.org; Hannes Tschofenig ; Thomas Fossati Subject: Adoption call for draft-tschofenig-uta-t

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

Thanks for the info, John. I will have a look at this publication. -Original Message- From: John Mattsson Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 3:14 PM To: Hannes Tschofenig ; t...@ietf.org; uta@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] CBOR Certificate Compression of RFC 7925 certificates suitable for cTLS

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

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

[Uta] draft-yang-uta-dtls13-for-iot

Hi Yang, Valery pointed me to your draft, which I had failed to notice. Thanks for the write-up. I read through it since it appears to have some relevance to draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-01 and here are a few comments: - IoT Services Scenarios and Devices o Low mobility, high commun

[Uta] draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-01

Hi all, I have submitted v1 of the TLS/DTLS 1.3 profile for IoT. This work aims to offer guidance similar to RFC 7925 but focuses on the new TLS / DTLS version. I believe this is the appropriate group to do this work since DICE, where RFC 7925 was originally done, has long been closed. My plan

Re: [Uta] Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS

Hi Peter, thanks for trying to work out suitable text. On 11/26/2014 03:46 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> Picking a "foo" I'd suggest adding this to 4.2 maybe >> >>"There are some environments that have hardware support for >> AES-CCM but not AES-GCM. Where interoperability with s

Re: [Uta] Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS

Hi Orit, On 11/16/2014 05:44 AM, Orit Levin (LCA) wrote: > In addition, Section 5 contains the detailed discussion on the > applicability of this BCP to various application protocols. XMPP is > an example of an application to rely on the BCP as the baseline and > specify further clarifications and

Re: [Uta] Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS

vironments, such as Internet of Things, XMPP and Email, can be found in other specifications. On 11/14/2014 09:37 PM, Leif Johansson wrote: > On 2014-11-14 20:57, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> I have a small request for "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS >> and DTLS" : C

[Uta] Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS

I have a small request for "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" : Could you please change the scope of the document so that it does not collide with the work we do in DICE. Your recommendations, as stated in the abstract, focus on the Web/messaging/email space rather than the Internet

Re: [Uta] Token Binding

Watson, On 11/12/2014 01:36 AM, Watson Ladd wrote: > What exactly is being copied? RFC 6749 doesn't provide a way to ensure > cookie stealing doesn't happen. Access tokens aren't bound, so a > mechanism needs to be provided to bind them. I don't see where the > conflict with OAuth is. The work

[Uta] Token Binding

I was unable to attend the UTA meeting today but I had a chance to look at the slides. To my surprise I had to notice that the authors have re-created a number of mechanisms we created in OAuth. I am wondering whether the authors are aware of this or whether this re-design (with just minor variat

Re: [Uta] TLS BCP Session Resumption

Hi Trevor, are you talking about session resumption as defined in the base TLS RFC or about session resumption without server-side state (RFC 5077)? Since you talk about tickets in your mail below I believe you are talking about the latter. Note that the ticket is an implementation choice