Subject: [Webtransport] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 07:08:30 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-webtrans/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we have a target security level (e.g., "the same as HTTPS with TLS 1.3")
that we want this work to provide?

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 10:19:31 +0100

Hi Ben,

Since we'll be using existing transport/security protocols (QUIC or
TLS/TCP),
we will derive our security level from what they provide.
- QUIC provides the same level as HTTPS over TLS 1.3
- TLS/TCP provides as much as the version of TLS in use.
The working group might decide to require TLS 1.3 or greater
when defining anything over TLS/TCP, but I don't think we need that
in the charter?

David

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 09:57:50 -0500

> Since we'll be using existing transport/security protocols (QUIC or TLS/TCP),

I agree that we don't need it in the charter.  The chairs are
certainly aware of the situation, and if I document came out that,
say, suggested 1.1, I'm sure the Sec ADs would DISCUSS that.

Barry