Re: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-dtls - failed

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:11 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear Donald,
>
> I am just as surprised as David by your decision to fail the last call.
>
> >> insufficient support indicated
>
> > I think this might be due to most WG participants having already shown support
> > for this document in the past. I did not see anyone arguing not to publish.
>
> As far as I am aware, everyone agrees that Babel-DTLS should be published,
> in order to satisfy those use cases that are not served by Babel-HMAC
> (asymmetric keying and confidentiality).

Perhaps I should have been more verbose. I meant "insufficient support
indicated on the mailing list in response to the WG Last Call". While
I believe it is legitimate for a WG Chair to take into account other
traffic on the mailing list and support shown in face-to-face
meetings, the call I posted didn't, for example, say there appeared to
be consensus and ask if there was any opposition. The message I posted
was a typical WG LC that asked for people to respond if they supported
or opposed publication:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01570.html
True, there were no opposition responses. But it is also true there
were zero responses indicating support. There were two responses but
neither expressed an opinion on publication. If there were any
problems later with a WG declaration of consensus, say an appeal, what
do you think the initial conclusion would be based on an examination
of the Babel WG mailing list?

> >> discussion on preserving crypto state
>
> > This was discussed on the list and there was pretty immediate consensus that
> > adding some text would address the issue entirely. I've now added that text.
> > However, I don't think the lack of that text warranted failing the WG last
> > call.
>
> This is not a wholly hypothetical vulnerability, and the fix is a single
> paragraph of text, a simple copy-paste from the latest revision of the
> Babel-HMAC draft.

Guess I should have stopped when I was ahead. But, while technical
changes can be made after the declaration of WG consensus, they are
procedurally more normal if made before the declaration of WG
consensus. And subsequent declaration of WG consensus provide an
especially solid confirmation of the change.

> >> co-existence with hmac including port numbers
>
> > I'm not sure what you are referring to, could you elaborate please?

As I recall I noticed some discussion of the port number(s) to be used
by Babel over DTLS that had not been fully resolved.

> I too would appreciate a clarification.

I am confident that after minor improvements, the draft will pass a
subsequent WG LC.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
 [e-mail]

> -- Juliusz