Resource-Oriented Lightweight Information Exchange
Summary: Needs 7 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Kathleen Moriarty Yes
Mirja Kühlewind No Objection
Eric Rescorla No Objection
OVERALL I share Martin Thomson's concerns about the restriction on 0-RTT. In the discussion, I saw two sets of concerns about 0-RTT: - Replay - Lack of FS As Martin says, the replay issue is an issue for the HTTP profile, so any concerns should be directed there. I agree that 0-RTT has inferior FS properties, but it's worth noting that TLS 1.2 session resumption with tickets has FS properties that are as bad or worse than those with TLS 1.3 0-RTT, and I don't see a prohibition here on session resumption. This leaves me a bit unclear on the security rationale here, and I think this needs to be consistent. INLINE COMMENTS or serialization. This approach allows the provider to support multiple, compatible formats allowing the consumer to select the most suitable version. What does "compatible" mean here. Do you mean isomorphic? supporting interactive user logins by members of the consortium SHOULD support client authentication via a federated identity scheme. Such as? Proper usage of TLS as described in Section 5.3 will in many cases aid in the mitigation of these issues. You should also note that TLS 1.2 and lower client auth leaks the user's identity to on-the-wire attackers. supported. TLS 1.2 SHOULD be implemented according to all recommendations and best practices present in [RFC7525]. You need a citation to 6125 about valiation, though I realize that 7525 cites it.