Subject: [tcpinc] TCPINC - security protocols - course of action

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 23:58:30 +0000

On Feb 29th, the chairs proposed the following to the tcpinc list as part of a longer
email (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpinc/current/msg01004.html,
and included below):

  For these reasons, the chairs strongly suggest that the best course of action
  for the TCPINC WG is to move forward to standardize tcpcrypt and TCP-ENO,
  with a plan to allocate additional TCP-ENO codepoints for the TLS profile and
  possible use of TCP-ENO to negotiate application use of TLS when those
  protocols are ready for standardization.  

Having seen nothing but support for this course of action in the nearly three
weeks since that email was sent to the list, the chairs are proceeding with this
course of action, as it is clearly supported by the rough consensus of the
tcpinc WG.

This is reflected in the initial draft tcpinc agenda for Buenos Aires that has
been posted:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/agenda/agenda-95-tcpinc

Thanks, --David

-----Original Message-----
From: Tcpinc [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 11:30 AM
To: tcpinc ([email-masked])
Subject: [tcpinc] TCPINC - security protocols

Here's an update from the chairs on the two TCPINC security protocols:

While the TLS WG is hard at work on TLS 1.3, that protocol is not finished
yet; the chairs believe that completion of that base protocol is a necessary
prerequisite for a TCPINC profile of TLS 1.3 (e.g., as a TCPINC profile will
have to normatively reference the TLS 1.3 specification).  In addition,
from a broader IETF perspective, completion of TLS 1.3 really does need
to be the first priority for TLS experts such as Eric Rescorla.

The chairs believe that it is important to get something done promptly, and
that waiting for TLS 1.3 followed by spending the time to finish a profile based
on it are not consistent with that goal. We (chairs) have checked with Eric
Rescorla  (author of the TCPINC profile of TLS), and he supports this point
of view. 

For these reasons, the chairs strongly suggest that the best course of action
for the TCPINC WG is to move forward to standardize tcpcrypt and TCP-ENO,
with a plan to allocate additional TCP-ENO codepoints for the TLS profile and
possible use of TCP-ENO to negotiate application use of TLS when those
protocols are ready for standardization.  Please note that if tcpcrypt continues
to progress faster than TCP-use-TLS, tcpcrypt would become the initial
mandatory-to-implement security protocol in the TCP-ENO specification.

Updated drafts have been posted to the datatracker for TCP-ENO and
tcpcrypt.  The chairs still intend to proceed with the expert reviews for the
security and transport aspects of these drafts, and expect those reviews
to complete during the month of March (i.e., results should be available
prior to the Buenos Aires meeting) supporting prompt progress towards
publication of both drafts as RFCs.

A final WG decision on how to proceed should be made in the next few
weeks,  so comments on the list are welcome.

Thanks, --David/Mirja/Kyle

_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc