* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Secdispatch Status Pages

Security Dispatch (Active WG)
Sec Area: Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk | 2018-Mar-09 —  
Chairs
 
 
 


IETF-111 secdispatch minutes


Minutes

minutes-111-secdispatch-00 minute



          Secdispatch @ IETF111Monday, July 26, 2021, 23:00-01:00 (+1) UTC
          Chairs: Kathleen Moriarty, Richard Barnes, Mohit SethiOriginal at
          https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-111-secdispatch
          Jabber: xmpp:secdispatch@jabber.ietf.org
          Meetecho:
          https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf111/?group=secdispatch&short=&item=1AgendaIntro
          (Chairs) - 10 minutesShowed the NOTE WELL.No bases
          to the proposed agenda.TLS 1.3 transport model for
          SNMPv3 (Ken Vaughn) - 20 minutesLink to mail post:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/ZQOQWCJKcdnVKH51eUP72QbTf1M/
          Link to draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vaughn-tlstm-update/Note
          from author: ITS community is interested in producing an update
          to RFC 6353. NTCIP and ISO communities have requested the author
          reach out to the IETF to initiate a conversation on this topic.EKR:
          Advocates a new WG and a standards-track output.Rich: Advocates a full
          document instead of an update.Roman: Where is the expertise in SNMP
          going to come from?  We know where to find TLS expertise.Richard:
          Can this be done in UTA?Ben: Leaning toward tightly scoped
          new WG.Roman: Maybe the OPS ADs can offer assistance about SNMP
          expertise.OUTCOME: Either OPS or small focused SEC WG.Definition of
          End-to-end Encryption (Mallory Knodel) - 20 minutesLink to mail post:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/DNHp1KsbDzzkNwO6aPp_PLeSIos/
          Link to draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-knodel-e2ee-definition/Quetion from
          authors: Which WG is best to continue work on the draft?PHB: Prefers
          LAMPS because it covers several protocol perspectives. Also, would
          like data at rest to be in scope too.Mohit (no chair hat): A definition
          that is specific to MLS is much easier than a general definition that
          covers many protocol environments.  SAAG is a better place to hold
          the general discussion.EKR: A definition is helpful. Example to TLS
          session to Google is not the “ends” for the Gmail application. Does
          not quite fit in an existing group.Richard: Need to include the
          different layers.Roman: If it is not specific to a protocol, then it
          probably needs to be AD sponsored.Ben: More discussion to determine
          the scope is needed.  Basically agree with Roman.OUTCOME: Set up a
          mail list to further the discussion.Fast Transition for Opportunistic
          Wireless Encryption (Jerome Henry) - 20 minutesLink to mail post:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/FlVfg8uiZcw4cIMUGzj-iGVx5J4/
          Link to draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-henry-ft-owe/Richard: Seems
          like IEEE 802.11 would be a better home.Dan: IEEE 802.11 did not
          want to do the OWE work that became RFC 8110.EKR: Suggests liaison
          with IEEE 802.11 as the first step.Bob Moskowitz: {poor audio}Roman:
          Agree with starting with a liaison statement.OUTCOME: Start with
          liaison with IEEE 802.11.ECDSA Signatures in Verification-Friendly
          Format (René Struik) - 20 minutesLink to mail post:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/tS_8Zfh3EYhbz4A-ZBMpDzHRvuU/
          Link to draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-struik-secdispatch-verify-friendly-ecdsa/Note
          from authors: Discussed this with lamps at IETF-110 but
          despite positive feedback lamps did not include this with their recent
          re-charter yet. The simple technique is broader than just lamps,
          though, and should be beneficial for any deployment (certificate
          transparency, openpgp, pkix, etc.). Lamps would be a good starting
          point.PHB: Suggest CFRG.Rene: Batch signature verification of 6x if
          public key the same. Less if just the same curve.DKG: Suggest CFRG
          before being used in protocols.Rich: Suggest CFRG review.Richard:
          Suggest CFRG review before any codepoints are assigned.Roman: Agree with
          Richard.OUTCOME: CFRG review before any codepoints are assigned.JWS Clear
          Text JSON Signature Option (Bret Jordan) - 20 minutesLink to mail post:
          https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/0kxStuDPR_SW8f1K1OJpsQCioMY/
          Link to draft:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jordan-jws-ct/Question from
          authors: What direction would be best for this work in the IETF?OUTCOME:
          ISEFlex time - 10 minutes
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/secdispatch/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -