Subject: [TLS] WG Status of draft-ietf-tls-pwd

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:35:55 -0400

All,

draft-ietf-tls-pwd [0] has been parked [1] by the WG chairs since late 2013.  It was parked by the WG chairs because there was no consensus to move the document forward during WGLC [2][3]. However, circumstances have changed namely the publication of Dragonfly Key Exchange RFC [4] and the proposed changes to the IANA registration rules for algorithm code points.  In light of these two developments, the chairs want to revisit this decision and would like to know before 12 July if the WG wants to progress draft-ietf-pwd as a WG item to obtain algorithm code points under the new rules [5].

Note that if the WG decides not to progress the draft the author will be free to pursue other publication paths, e.g., through the AD or the ISE.

Thanks,

J&S

[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-pwd/
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6174/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aYIXwO8l4K8XdvUoW9ysHT8WzA0
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Fep2-E7xQX7OQKzfxOoFInVFtm4
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7664/
[5] Obviously, the draft needs to be revised in light of [3].

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:01:03 -0700

On Jun 27, 2016 7:38 AM, "Sean Turner" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> draft-ietf-tls-pwd [0] has been parked [1] by the WG chairs since late
2013.  It was parked  by the WG chairs because there was no consensus to
move the document forward during WGLC [2][3]. However, circumstances have
changed namely the publication of Dragonfly Key Exchange RFC [4] and the
proposed changes to the IANA registration rules for algorithm code points.
In light of these two developments, the chairs want to revisit this
decision and would like to know before 12 July if the WG wants to progress
draft-ietf-pwd as a WG item to obtain algorithm code points under the new
rules [5].

Things have also changed in that JPAKE2 has a security proof IIUC. While
the CFRG PAKE process has slowed, there are still a number of competing
options here and I don't think "all of the above" is the right answer.

>
> Note that if the WG decides not to progress the draft the author will be
free to pursue other publication paths, e.g., through the AD or the ISE.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:57:28 -0700

I don't think we should take this as a WG work item. I'd be happy for Dan
to get a code point
under the new rules, which I would also be happy to consider effective as
of now.

-Ekr

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Watson Ladd <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/aYIXwO8l4K8XdvUoW9ysHT8WzA0
> > [3]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Fep2-E7xQX7OQKzfxOoFInVFtm4