Re: [Ace] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with COMMENT)

Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@tzi.org> Mon, 10 May 2021 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bergmann@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4DD3A1C6A; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZ1NeyeW9Gxs; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19DF03A1C66; Mon, 10 May 2021 06:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wangari.tzi.org (p5b36f986.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.54.249.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Ff1nR05VmzySR; Mon, 10 May 2021 15:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@tzi.org>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize@ietf.org, ace-chairs@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org
References: <161666494909.28975.7548084943604194377@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:17:46 +0200
In-Reply-To: <161666494909.28975.7548084943604194377@ietfa.amsl.com> (Robert Wilton via Datatracker's message of "Thu, 25 Mar 2021 02:35:49 -0700")
Message-ID: <874kfa4tj9.fsf@wangari>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/3czG-ADs6ljXg7DRiSa_no8mzSk>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:17:54 -0000

Hi Rob,

sorry for the late response. Please find our comments inline.

Grüße
Olaf

On 2021-03-25, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: 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.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document.  Like Eric V, I was slightly surprised to see this
> defined to use DTLS 1.2 when DTLS 1.3 is on the same telechat, which is
> obsoleting the DTLS 1.2 RFC.
>
> But what is not obvious to me is whether the protocol is allowed to
> use a later
> version of DTLS, or whether it is strictly tied to DTLS 1.2 and an
> updated RFC
> would be required to use a newer version of DTLS.  Either way,
> possibly a few
> words to clarify this may be beneficial to readers, but I'll leave it to the
> author's discretion.

Thank you for raising this issue. We have addressed this in our response
to Éric's review, suggesting a clarifying sentence that in general, this
specification would also apply to DTLS 1.3.