Subject: [TLS] TLS Opaque

From: Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:38:52 -0700

Hi Folks,

We had a presentation on TLS opaque at IETF 110, but we have not had much
discussion of this document on the list.  The chairs would like to see more
discussion on the document before considering it for adoption.  There is at
least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for some time [1].

Cheers,

Joe, Sean, and Chris

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/yCBYp10QuYPSu5zOoM3v84SAIZE/

---

From: "Hao, Feng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:01:29 +0000

If this follows from the IETF PAKE selection, was OPAQUE-3DH proposed and reviewed during the selection process?

https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection/blob/master/Candidates/OPAQUE.md

Cheers,
Feng

From: TLS <[email-masked]> on behalf of Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, 31 March 2021 at 05:40
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [TLS] TLS Opaque

Hi Folks,

We had a presentation on TLS opaque at IETF 110, but we have not had much discussion of this document on the list.  The chairs would like to see more discussion on the document before considering it for adoption.  There is at least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for some time [1].

Cheers,

Joe, Sean, and Chris

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:17:43 +0000

*   We had a presentation on TLS opaque at IETF 110, but we have not had much discussion of this document on the list.  The chairs would like to see more discussion on the document before considering it for adoption.  There is at least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for some time [1].

I don’t have an opinion on the mechanism or on adoption.

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:29:58 +0000

I like the mechanism, and therefore support it’s adoption. 

Regards,
Uri

> On Mar 31, 2021, at 12:18, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Rob Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:37:18 -0700

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:39 PM Joseph Salowey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> discussion on the document before considering it for adoption.
>

The draft is interesting, but I'm not sure I really agree with the approach
the draft takes with regard to the TLS key schedule. It seems fine to
debate in the WG, though.

> There is at least one question on the list that has gone unanswered for
> some time [1].
>

I've found most of the OPAQUE drafts are pretty confusing / incorrect / or
typo'd when it comes to lines like these. Describing these calculations
seems difficult in ASCII, so I don't fault anyone for making mistakes here.
The authors have also been pretty responsive in adding test vectors and
such.

thanks,
Rob

---

From: Watson Ladd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:59:57 -0700

I support adoption. We've seen interest in adding PAKE to TLS several
times, including in RFC 5054, recent drafts, etc. Having the selected
PAKE from the CFRG in TLS is important.

-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim