Chairs: Valery Smyslov, Alan DeKok
Note takers: Janfred, Paul
Agenda remains unbashed.
Rich Salz presenting.
Valery (no hat): RFC9325 has already words about 1.2 MUST and 1.3
(SHOULD)
Rich: This draft wants to flip that, 1.3 MUST, 1.2 MAY
Valery: should be carefully selected.
Rich: Doesn't change RFC9325 for existing protocols, only for NEW
protocols.
Paul: New protocols or new applications?
Rich: Mor on the lines on "brand new protocol"
Teru: It was easy for us to migrate to TLS 1.3. But DTLS is challanging
- we are not on 1.3 yet.
Rich: this doc says: does not apply to DTLS, sorry :) DTLS1.3 is not
widely available, doesn't make sense to mandate DTLS1.3 (or say
something about it)
Jonathan: MUST default to 1.3, suggest to change to "default to 1.3 or
higher"
Jim Fenten: What means "default to 1.3"? (meaning of "default" in this
context)
Johnathan: I thought it ment that if you offer a new service, you MUST
support 1.3
Alan (no hat): Had issues with 1.3 in EAP, solution: use 1.3 as default,
only use lower version if explicitly configured
David Benjamin: Question is what is the minimum version? The title of
the draft suggests that min_version for new protocols to "1.3(or
higher)"
Valery: We'll issue a WG adoption call. Question to AD: Will it be a
part of BCP195 because it updates 9325.
Paul: Yes.
John Gray: How do you enforce this?
Rich: We can't really. It just guides the industry.
Tiru pesenting.
John Grey: You showed the discovery, planning to present in Vancouver at
the next IETF, Dilithium is not technically standardized.
Ben: There is a lot text not related to TLS but more general, maybe even
go to WG like PQUIP.
Paul W (no hat): Also wondering, if UTA is the right WG for this
John Grey: I'll have a look at this document, a lot sounded like
something that's going on in other groups.
David Benjamin: On guidance on how to use TLS a bit unsure, most
documents referenced are in different stages of standardization process.
It is a good survey of what happens, not everything will end up useful
to TLS. Could maybe devided in different drafts.
Valery: Some concerns about the document, may be a bit premature,
technology in TLS and LAMPS are not set, we could adopt it, but it could
not be published until the work in other groups on underlying technology
is finalized.
Tiru: Don't think this draft will be going to publication any time soon,
could be a long lived WG document to continue having conversation in the
WG. Would like to have feedback of the WG, if there is interest.
Janfred: RADIUS/TLS draft, will make changes next week, then more
feedback please.
John Grey: (some comment about chameleon certificates)