On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 3:55 PM Geoff Huston via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Geoff Huston > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I was assigned as the dnsdir reviewer for draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13-05. > For more information about the DNS Directorate, please see > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/dnsdir > > NIT: Should the enumeration of the known deficiencies of TLS 1.2 be > contained > in the Introduction? The same considerations are described in Section 6, > and > their summation in the Introduction seems to be superfluous. > > NIT: the assertion in section 3 that "TLS applications will need to > migrate to > post-quantum cryptography" is ddependent on the expectation of the > lifetime of > the integrity of the encrypted object. The current advice on the immediate > need > to use PQC is based on an integrity lifetime of 20 years.I would feel > better if > the sentence read "many TLD applications..." > Do you have a source for this 20 year figure? It hasn't figured heavily in the discussions in (say) TLS WG. More generally, it's very hard to estimate the meaningful lifetime of data and even hard to measure the meaningful lifetime when a protocol can carry multiple kinds of data (e.g., HTTP can carry data with effective lifetime in seconds like MFA codes or decades like medical information). Can you provide some examples of protocols which you do not think need to transition to PQ algorithms? -Ekr > > NIT: Section 4: "As a counter example, the Usage Profile for DNS over TLS > [DNSTLS] specifies TLS 1.2 as the default, while also allowing TLS 1.3." I > fail > to appreciate the rationale for including this - the text is careful to > note > that this applies to new protocols and DNS over TLS is not a new protocol > at > this state. > > > -- > last-call mailing list -- last-c...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- uta@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to uta-le...@ietf.org
