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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald,

Thanks for elaborating.

> 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.

The port number discussion was resolved in October 2018 and the output was
added to draft-ietf-babel-dtls-01. If you know of anything else
outstanding, could you please send us details?

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

Could you please send us a specific list of requested minor improvements,
so we can start the new WG LC?

Thanks,
David


On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:39 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>