USAA

carl.mehner@usaa.com

General TLS Internet-Draft This document defines new Transport Layer Security (TLS) Supported Groups to allow negotiation in TLS for encoding certain elliptic curve public keys in a compressed form rather than the more verbose method specified in and .

Versions of TLS prior to 1.3 allowed for Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Point Compression negotiation, by sending a however in TLS 1.3 and Section 5.1.2 of , that mechanism was deprecated in favor of having one point encoding format for each negotiated curve. Utilizing point compression is important to reduce the size of negotiated curves within TLS in general, but especially with . The code points defined in this document are intended for use in TLS, dTLS, cTLS, and other similar protocols that negotiate Elliptic Curve Groups for key exchange.

The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “NOT RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. All TLS notation comes from Section 3 of .

This document defines three new TLS Supported Groups for the compressed forms of secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1 (collectively colloquially called the NIST Curves). The compressed forms of these groups are indicated by adding a letter ‘c’ at the end of the descriptive name. The new groups are secp256r1c, secp384r1c, and secp521r1c. TLS groups using compressed NIST curves MUST use these newly defined group identifiers. The “TLS Supported Groups” name space is maintained by IANA.

; } NamedGroupList; ]]>

In Section 4.2.8.2 of the encoding method for ECDHE Parameters is described, this document adds a new struct to serialize the new parameters. The method for determining the values for the elements of the serialized structure are documented in . For secp256r1c, secp384r1c, and secp521r1c, the contents are the serialized value of the following struct defined using the presentation language in Section 3 of :

IANA is requested to assign the value tbd1 to secp256r1c, the value tbd2 to secp384r1c, and the value tbd3 to secp521r1c in the “TLS Supported Groups” registry. For these three new supported groups the “DTLS OK” is set to ‘Y’. For tbd1 and tbd2 the “Recommended” column is set to ‘Y’ and for tbd3 the “Recommended” column is set to ‘N’.

The security considerations of and apply to the selection of TLS named groups and the use of the curves specified in this document.

This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations. This document describes key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) as authentication mechanisms.This document obsoletes RFC 4492. Certicom Research In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Mozilla Cisco Arm Limited This document specifies a "compact" version of TLS 1.3. It is isomorphic to TLS 1.3 but saves space by trimming obsolete material, tighter encoding, a template-based specialization technique, and alternative cryptographic techniques. cTLS is not directly interoperable with TLS 1.3, but it should eventually be possible for a cTLS/TLS 1.3 server to exist and successfully interoperate.