Subject: [TLS] Origin Bound Certificates extension?

From: Jeffrey Walton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:04:31 -0400

Forgive my ignorance... What happened with the Origin Bound
Certificates extension
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balfanz-tls-obc-01)?

---

From: Adam Langley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:05:45 -0700

> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-balfanz-tls-obc-01)?

It evolved into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-01

Cheers

AGL

---

From: Jeffrey Walton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:46:30 -0400

> It evolved into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-01
Perfect, thanks.

Any plans to support Bernstein's gear:

    ...

    enum {
        rsa(1), ecdsap256(3), (255)
    } SignatureAlgorithm;
    ...

    enum {
        secp256r1 (23), (0xFFFF)
    } NamedCurve;

Should there be a ed25519 or similar?

To be clear, I'm interested in using it to stop MitM due to gaps in
existing controls in some security models, and not stop the triple
handshake threat.

Jeff

---

From: Adam Langley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:48:55 -0700

> Should there be a ed25519 or similar?

When CFRG kick out a signature scheme I expect that would be a very
good candidate for inclusion. (Although CFRG will not be standardising
Ed25519 based on current discussions.)

Cheers

AGL

---

From: "Ryan Sleevi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:04:06 -0700

>  Should there be a ed25519 or similar?

You should ask the WG that is working on the draft, which is the tokbind
WG, not the tls WG.

http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tokbind/charter/

---

From: Jeffrey Walton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:44:15 -0400

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tokbind/charter/

Ah, thanks again Ryan.

Sorry about the extra noise.

Jeff