[TLS] TLS 1.3 process

Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 21:48 UTC

From: Sean Turner <TurnerS@ieca.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <AF370E26-CA97-4CE3-9CC7-2F0939FE2B71@ieca.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 17:48:47 -0400
To: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/rTlVyrn2Rdf4yEf9cn8OH77x1Dw
Subject: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process
Precedence: list

All,

The TLS WG charter is pretty clear that the intention isn't to design
a completely new protocol but rather to revise TLS, and specifically
to "place a priority in minimizing gratuitous changes to TLS." This
is not to say that we can't consider new cryptographic handshake flows
-- TLS has always been open to that -- but completely replacing TLS
with a new protocol is out of scope for this WG.

With this in mind and regard to the bigger question about the
process, here's how the chairs intend to proceed:

1. Start with the existing TLS document. As usual in IETF, this
   doesn't mean that any particular piece of the document cannot
   be changed if the WG wants to, but it's where we will start;
   it also makes it a lot easier to get through the process
   since the IESG, directorates, and WGs that depend on TLS 
   can see what changed.
2. If possible, remove the pieces we agree we don't need (hence the
   recent consensus calls).
3. Settle on the high-level handshake flows (charter items #1 and #2)
   in light of #2.
4. Reevaluate the handshake PDUs (charter item #4)
5. Update record protection mechanisms in the record layer
   (charter items #3 and #5)
6. Iterate on the document until complete. Key to this process is
   getting input from academic cryptographers, which is why we
   are prioritizing the handshake flows, because they are probably
   the piece that needs the most analysis.
7. Publish.

With that said, the reason for the present consensus calls should be
clear, as they are intended to either remove pieces (#2) or resolve
requirements for the handshake (#3).

To sum up: We have a set of requirements, from the charter and
from the consensus calls we're having now.  Our chartered goal is
to meet those requirements with the minimum set of changes to TLS. 

TLS co-chairs

j & e & s

[TLS] TLS 1.3 process Sean Turner
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Trevor Perrin
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Watson Ladd
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Martin Thomson
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Trevor Perrin
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Salz, Rich
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process t.petch
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Stephen Farrell
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Douglas Stebila
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Salz, Rich
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Watson Ladd
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Dan Harkins
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Adam Langley
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Eric Rescorla
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Watson Ladd
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Trevor Perrin
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Bill Frantz
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Eric Rescorla
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Dan Harkins
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Bill Frantz
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Dan Harkins
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Salz, Rich
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Bill Frantz
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Dan Harkins
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Watson Ladd
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Dan Harkins
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Peter Gutmann
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process Andy Lutomirski
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 process henry.story@bblfish.net