+1. This seems like a reasonable way forward. Russ
On Nov 17, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > There are presently four categories of cipher suites vis-a-vis TLS 1.3. > > 1. MUST or SHOULD cipher suites. > 2. Standards track cipher suites (or ones we are making ST, like > the ECC ones). > 3. Non standards track cipher suites > 4. Cipher suites you can't use at all with TLS 1.3, like AES-CBC. > > I think we're all agreed that category #1 should be marked recommended > and that #3 and #4 should not be. This leaves us with category #2, which > includes stuff like: > > - FFDHE > - CCM > > My proposal is that we: > > - List all the Standards Track cipher suites that are compatible with TLS 1.3 > in Appendix A. > - Mark all the cipher suites that are listed in Appendix A as "Recommended" > > -Ekr > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Joe Salowey <jsalo...@tableau.com> wrote: > I think the TLS 1.3 IANA considerations should just deal with setting up the > recommended column and marking it for the cipher suites/extensions that are > described in the 1.3 document. Other cipher suites/extensions can be marked > as recommended through other documents. > > > > > On 11/17/15, 6:54 AM, "TLS on behalf of Sean Turner" <tls-boun...@ietf.org on > behalf of s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > >On Nov 17, 2015, at 16:40, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> > >> > 1. The Cipher Suites "Recommended" column was populated based on > >> > the Standards Track RFCs listed in the document (and I removed the > >> > others). > >> > >> Isn’t it just the MTI suites listed in s8.1? > >> > >> Maybe I need to go check the minutes, but I thought it was the > >> Standards Track ones, not the MTI ones that we agreed on. > >> The difference here is largely the FFDHE cipher suites and CCM. > > > >From Jim’s notes in the etherpad: > > > >AOB > >SPT: Requests for additional ciphers from others. Listing in A.4 > > Suggest thinning it down to the SHOULD/MUST list only. > >EKR: Need to encourage support for PSK variants > >EKR: Looking at the difference between the "good" list and the "safe" list > >and the "no opinion" list > >EKR: Sample case would be 448 - not a MUST/SHOULD but still think it is good. > > > >spt > >_______________________________________________ > >TLS mailing list > >TLS@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
