IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-03.txt

Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@tzi.org> Wed, 21 September 2022 11:35 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 C8034C14CF03 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 04:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UgNMBC-eFYup for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 04:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E73C14CF00 for <ace@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 04:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wangari.tzi.org (dynamic-218-2.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.232]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4MXbth11pNzDCgH; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:35:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@tzi.org>
To: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>
References: <166211097297.15936.4492846068479619668@ietfa.amsl.com> <871qsui0ig.fsf@wangari> <CADZyTkkqcgSnWhEmwYJ9a+R4o2gQRQ19VFGLX1DdhDYqiikxjQ@mail.gmail.com> <87zgevmo9d.fsf@wangari> <CADZyTkkq8=sf=g8GEC2GOf-MSN0nhkoUrDK2f0M--i7mA96D8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:35:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CADZyTkkq8=sf=g8GEC2GOf-MSN0nhkoUrDK2f0M--i7mA96D8Q@mail.gmail.com> (Daniel Migault's message of "Mon, 19 Sep 2022 10:32:37 -0400")
Message-ID: <87r105ot8z.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/KSoVmn1-9XcPq-CsKXTTC-M9JzI>
Subject: Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-extend-dtls-authorize-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:35:16 -0000

Hi Daniel,

On 2022-09-19, Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are correct, it might be clearer to keep it. 

Thanks. I have now submitted -04 that removes the reference to RFC
9202 from the abstract.

Grüße
Olaf

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:29 AM Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@tzi.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi Daniel,
>
>  Thanks for pushing this document forward.
>
>  On 2022-09-16, Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > There two nits to address before the draft can be moved forward . 
>  >
>  >   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC9202]), which it
>  >      shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
>  >      documents in question.
>
>  Okay, I will fix this.
>
>  >  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147)
>
>  The full text reads:
>
>     [RFC9202] only specifies the use of DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] but
>     works equally well for TLS [RFC8446].
>
>  The reference to DTLS version 1.2 is explicitly included because RFC
>  9202 specifies the use of DTLS version 1.2 (and mentions that DTLS
>  version 1.3 can be used instead).
>
>  I am happy to delete the reference to DTLS 1.2 but I am wondering if
>  this could lead to confusion?
>
>  Grüße
>  Olaf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email