It would be great to here from Jonathan (the author) if RFC 7250 is already sufficient for this use case.
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:23 PM Mohit Sethi <mo...@iki.fi> wrote: > Please see my earlier comment regarding this draft: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/g3tImSVXO8AEmPH1UlwRB1c1TLs/ > > In summary: the functionality of this draft is already achievable by > using the client_certificate_type extension defined in RFC 7250: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7250 with certificate type > value = 0: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-3 > . > > The table in section 4.2 of RFC8446 even mentions that the extension can > be included in the ClientHello: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-4.2, thereby > ensuring that the server sends a CertificateRequest message in response > to the ClientHello received. > > OpenSSL already implements this extension since it was needed for > support raw public keys (RPKs). > > As stated earlier: if it is indeed the case that the > client_certificate_type extension is suitable for the use-case, then > perhaps it is preferable to not have a separate flag. Otherwise, it > would make the state machine at the server more complicated (for > example: handling a ClientHello with both the mTLS flag and the > client_certificate_type extension. > > Therefore, like Ekr, I am mildly negative on adopting this document but > for different reasons. > > --Mohit > > On 4/3/24 00:52, Sean Turner wrote: > > At the IETF 119 TLS session there was some interest in the mTLS Flag I-D > ( > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-jhoyla-req-mtls-flag%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohit.sethi%40aalto.fi%7C42877de6d3d64135e49e08dc534a463b%7Cae1a772440414462a6dc538cb199707e%7C1%7C0%7C638476825681199391%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ERzWFcuBlAfobNyGCcgKDhCl9wex9LOQ%2F3yPYC7idfU%3D&reserved=0); > also, see previous list discussions at [0]. This message is to judge > consensus on whether there is sufficient support to adopt this I-D. If you > support adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send > a message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this I-D, please > send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close on 16 > April 2024. > > > > Thanks, > > Deirdre, Joe, and Sean > > > > [0] > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Ftls%2F9e2S95H9YgtHp5HhqdlNqmQP0_w%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohit.sethi%40aalto.fi%7C42877de6d3d64135e49e08dc534a463b%7Cae1a772440414462a6dc538cb199707e%7C1%7C0%7C638476825681208049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eEU6ZPJ5cmfqLHQuM3UYXrFKCJuKaaJVc8Ssk5erRjk%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftls&data=05%7C02%7Cmohit.sethi%40aalto.fi%7C42877de6d3d64135e49e08dc534a463b%7Cae1a772440414462a6dc538cb199707e%7C1%7C0%7C638476825681214744%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2B9CGIKB31GI9RMQG62I1rTnbHaDPfSynvlmwrkPn%2FpQ%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
