Minutes of the TLS Working Group Meeting, August, 2001

The TLS working group met on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 at 1300-1500 at the 51st IETF meeting in London. The meeting was chaired by Win Treese (treese@acm.org). Minutes by Win Treese.

Agenda

  1. Review of agenda and current status (5 minutes)
  2. Moving RFC 2246 to Draft Standard (10 minutes)
  3. Other Proposals (30 minutes)
  4. CipherSuites (1 hour)
  5. Open discussion (15 minutes): should the WG undertake to define a major revision to TLS? If so, what changes should we focus on?

Discussion

Eric Rescorla (ekr@rtfm.com) has kindly agreed to work with Tim Dierks (Tim_Dierks@certicom.com) to edit RFC 2246 for advancing to Draft Standard. If you have any comments or suggestions for change, please send to the list or to Eric, Tim, and Win.

There was some discussion over which ciphersuites should be specified in the next version. Should AES be included? Should the mandatory ciphersuite be changed? No decisions were taken.

Simon Blake-Wilson made a brief presentation on the TLS Extensions draft (draft-ietf-tls-extensions-00.txt). Slides from the presentation are available in the IETF meeting minutes or at the TLS web site. Simon's presentation listed some open questions that need to be resolved, which is the next order of business for this draft.

Simon's presentation: [HTML] [PDF] [PowerPoint]

Shiho MORIAI of NTT (shiho@sucaba.isl.ntt.co.jp) spoke briefly about the Camellia ciphersuites. Her presentation is available in PowerPoint.

Doug Engert said a little about the TLS Delegation Protocol draft (draft-ietf-tls-delegation-01.txt) with more discussion to follow on the mailing list.

David Taylor, author of ``Using SRP for TLS Authentication'' (draft-ietf-tls-srp-01.txt), was unable to attend the meeting, so discussion will take place on the mailing list.

Ciphersuites

The AES ciphersuite draft without OAEP will be put forward for Proposed Standard.

There was much discussion of whether the IANA should handle ciphersuite assignments, which Treese will discuss with them. There was also quite a bit of discussion about whether patented algorithms should be given RFCs of any kind for ciphersuite identifiers.

Treese made two proposals for the handling of future ciphersuite submissions:

  1. New drafts specifying export-grade ciphersuites will not be accepted for publication as working group drafts.
  2. New drafts should specify temporary ciphersuite identifiers from the experimental range for the initial submission.

Because the authors were not present, discussion of the draft for Kerberos Cipher Suites in Transport Layer Security (TLS) (draft-ietf-tls-kerb-00.txt) was deferred to the mailing list.

Pending discussion on the mailing list, the drafts for Addition of MISTY1 to TLS (draft-ietf-tls-misty1-01.txt), Addition of the Camellia Encryption Algorithm to TLS (draft-ietf-tls-camellia-01.txt), and 56-bit Export Cipher Suites For TLS (draft-ietf-tls-56-bit-ciphersuites-01.txt) will be submitted as Informational RFCs.

The remaining drafts require further discussion on the mailing list.

Presentations on some of the ciphersuites:



Respectfully submitted,

Win Treese
Chair, TLS working group
treese@acm.org