Subject: [TLS] Next steps for draft-ietf-tls-ecc-XX.txt

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:40:32 -0700

I have tallied the results of the straw poll on progressing
draft-ietf-tls-ecc-XX.txt. 

The results are below: 
A (Proposed Standard):               12
B (Informational w/o extensions):    7 (including both chairs)
C (Informational w/ extensions):     1 
	
Win and I have consulted with the ADs and we believe that this does not
represent a WG consensus to progress the document at Proposed
Standard. Accordingly, we will be progressing the document at
Informational.

Authors: Please prepare a version of the document that removes the
extensions and submit it as an I-D. Once you have done that, I intend to
proceed immediately to WGLC on the document.

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:58:20 +0200

On Saturday 23 October 2004 07:40, Eric Rescorla wrote:

(in my previous posting I used a different e-mail address and 
 it did not appear, so I resend it)

> Standard. Accordingly, we will be progressing the document at

I don't really find it usefull to have this as an informational RFC without
the extensions. Especially the removal of "the Supported Elliptic Curves"
extension may harm interoperation. 

Other than that, by not allowing this informational rfc to define extensions, 
this will prohibit any other proposed additions to TLS, that do not end up as 
proposed standard, from using TLS extensions. For example the SRP draft and 
the openpgp-keys, if end up as informational, they will be completely 
useless. They heavily depend on the TLS extensions. 

Given that there is no important reason for removing them except for the 
wording of the extensions rfc, I'd suggest to change the wording instead.

PS. I disagree with the choice of the extension numbers in the ecc draft 
though, since they overlap with other extensions in the above drafts.

-- 
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos

---

From: "Simon Blake-Wilson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:38:40 -0400

I agree that it is desirable to keep the extensions. As one of the 12 in
category A, if I'd had the choice between only B and C, I would have gone
for C. I wonder if the others in A feel the same way.

It seems to me that we have a couple of ways to achieve C:

- Keep ECC in TLS as a single Informational draft and update the
extensions RFC.
- Split ECC in TLS into two - an informational RFC specifying the crypto,
and a Proposed Standard specifying the extensions

Is the second option (ie a Proposed Standard with a normative reference to
an Informational RFC) allowed under IETF rules?

Best regards. Simon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nikos
> Mavrogiannopoulos
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 1:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Next steps for draft-ietf-tls-ecc-XX.txt
>
>
> > Win and I have consulted with the ADs and we believe that this does
> > not represent a WG consensus to progress the document at Proposed
> I don't really find it usefull to have this as an
> informational RFC without the extensions. Especially the
> removal of "the Supported Elliptic Curves" extension may harm
> interoperation.
>