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

Tls Status Pages

Transport Layer Security (Active WG)
Sec Area: Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk | 1996-May-24 —  

IETF-109 tls minutes

Session 2020-11-17 1430-1530: Room 6 - tls chatroom


minutes-109-tls-00 minutes

          # TLS @ IETF 109
          ## Logistics
          ### Time
          Tuesday, November 17, 2020 (+07), 14:30-15:30
          ### Meeting Information
          Meetecho (a/v and chat):
          Audio (only):
          Etherpad (virtual blue sheets and notes):
          ## Agenda
          ### Administrivia
          - Virtual Meeting Tips
          - Note Well
          - Virtual Bluesheet
          - Note Taker
          - Jabber Scribe
          - Status
          ## Status
          1. Certifcate compression -- refer to RFC 8478 instead of
             RFC 8478bis to remove a reference dependecy that is
             holding up pulbication.
          2. Deprecate 1.0/1.1 -- last call
          3. DTLS edits
          4. ...
          ## DTLS CID
          * Pointed out during security review:
              * Encoding of input to MAC is not injective
                  * Confusion around the boundary between the CID
                    and plaintext
          * Not clear what the impact is, but it makes the protocol
            hard to reason about.
              * Not an issue for TLS 1.3
          * Poposed solution:
              * length-prefix the CID
          * Objections?
              * Benjamin Kaduk (no objection): Do we need a new
                code point?
                  * Answer -- ??
              * Hannes Tschofenig (no objection): At various times
                we've changed the AD and MAC due to the potential
                of an attack, but without a concrete attack or a
                formal anlaysis to say either way.
          * NO OBJECCTIONS.
          ## TLS ECH
          * PR#353: Derive accept confirmation from handshake
              * Objections?
                  * Eric Rescorla (no objection): Is the attack
                    that this prevents in scope? We don't yet
                    have a clear threat model.
                  * Chris Wood (no objection): Points to GH issue
                    regarding the threat model for "don't stick out".
              * NO OBJECTIONS.
          * PR#352: Use the same HPKE context between the two CHs
              * NO OBJECTIONS.
          * PR#316: Require HRR-sensitive parameters match in CHOuter/CHInner
              * Objections?
                  * Jonathan Hoyland (no objection): Does this increase the
                    risk of fingerprinting?
                      * It's not clear.
              * NO OBJECTIONS.
          * PR#360: Define new code point for CHINner indication
              * NO OBJECTIONS.
          * Issue#326: Authenticate ClientECH parameters via AEAD encryption
              * Objections?
                  * DKG (no objection): does this require fancier
                    interconnection between the fronting server and
                    the backend in split mode?
                      * No it doesn't.
              * NO OBJECTIONS (NEEDS TEXT).
          * Issue#358: ECH contradicts second ClientHello consistency
            requirements in RFC8446
              * EKR: The solution isn't to strike "and present in the
                HelloRetryRequest", as David Ben suggests. The intent
                of the rule is that you're not supposed to change
                things the server didn't tell you to change in the HRR.
              * Chris Wood: We might just punt until after ECH-09.
              * David Ben.: There is a compat isssue in the wild!
                "LibreSSL breaks if you change an extension they don't
                 recognize. :-("
              * NEEDS DISCUSSION.
          * PR#313: Replace record-level padding with handshake-level
              * Chris Wood: Punt the server-side padding story until
                after ECH-09.
                  * Objections?
                  * NO OBJECTIONS.
          * Issue#354: "Don't stick out" considerations
              * Chris Wood: Let's make this (one of the) main issues
                to discuss at the next interim.
          ## Interop targets
          * Steal QUIC's methodology for coming up with implementation
              * Target a draft, but an implementation might target a
                draft + some PR.
              * Goal: continue development on the spec while allowing
                implementors to follow along.
              * Objections?
                  * EKR: Please don't target particular sets of PRs

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