Subject: Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 13:07:40 -0400

hi TLS WG,

Thank you for your input during the consensus call to add ticket reuse text to draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests. What we see are some very strongly held positions on both sides of this issue, but what we do not see is consensus to add text to support the ticket reuse case. What this means is that the status quo from C.4 of RFC 8446 stands. The chairs do not believe the SHOULD NOT from RFC 8446 needs to be repeated in this draft.

We will note however that we do see some potential for emerging consensus to add a second counter. To expedite reaching consensus on this point, we will run another separate consensus call to determine whether to add a second counter.

Likewise, we note that PR#18 [0] includes editorial changes as well as text from PR#17 [1] that will be merged if we decide to add a second counter.

Joe and Sean

[0] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/18
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/17

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:06, Sean Turner <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> one more time ...
> 
> All,
> 
> The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way forward for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests. The issue at hand is whether the client-initiated ticket request mechanism [0] should be modified to add support for ticket reuse, see [1] lines 160-214. As we see it, the way forward involves either one draft or two. To that end, we would like your input (YES or NO) on the following question by 2359 UTC 18 March 2020:
> 
> Must the ticket reuse use case be addresses
> in draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests?
> 
> Full disclosure: RFC 8446 recommends against ticket reuse to help protect clients from passive observers correlating connections [2]. The PR supports ticket reuse for use cases for a server-to-server connection that has fixed source addresses and no connection racing; if adopted the WG will need to ensure that the security considerations are properly documented.
> 
> Note: There have been at least three threads on this draft [3][4][5]. Please, let’s try to avoid re-litigating the points made therein.
> 
> Joe & Sean
> 
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests/
> [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/18
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#appendix-C.4
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2cpoaJRushs09EFeTjPr-Ka3FeI/
> [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/-7J3gMmpHNw9t3URzxvM-3OaTR8/
> [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/FjhqbYYTwzgiV9weeCuxn0tHxPs/