Hi,I had previously requested a slot at meeting 125 for this. So I look forward to discussion at the meeting.
In the mean time, I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback.
Changes compared to -01 are:
* Protection of TLS proofs from outside adversaries 🙂
* FATT process not being followed with examples of
o ML-KEM
o Key update
* Proposed document structure with example of
draft-wang-tls-service-affinity: this is WiP and needs more work.
Chairs, please forward to the FATT who are not on list to get their
opinion, and when you have their opinion, please send it out on the list
for discussion. Don't wait until meeting for that!
Aijun, I haven't seen any update on your draft until the cutoff. Do you plan to pursue the draft?
PAKE authors, could you please summarize the current state of your formal analysis? Do you have any open questions that further formal analysis might help?
Sincerely, -Usama (on behalf of formal analysis team) -------- Forwarded Message --------Subject: New Version Notification for draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-02.txt
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 15:56:13 -0800 From: [email protected]To: Muhammad Sardar <[email protected]>, Muhammad Usama Sardar <[email protected]>
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-02.txt has been
successfully submitted by Muhammad Usama Sardar and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension Revision: 02 Title: Extensions to TLS FATT Process Date: 2026-03-02 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 14 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension/ HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-02.htmlHTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-02
Abstract: This document applies only to non-trivial extensions of TLS, which require formal analysis. It proposes the authors provide a threat model and informal security goals in the Security Considerations section, as well as motivation and a protocol diagram in the draft. We also briefly present a few pain points of the team doing the formal analysis which -- we believe -- require refining the process: * Contacting FATT * Understanding the opposing goals * No response from some authors * Slots at meeting * Provide protection against FATT-bypass by other TLS-related WGs * Process not being followed The IETF Secretariat
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
