Re: [Cfrg] review of draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke-05

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Mon, 17 August 2020 08:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6563A08AA for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.212, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 feOJTlm6kYaa for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com (welho-filter1b.welho.com [83.102.41.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CEED3A08A3 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 01:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9059360612 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:37:23 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xmy9H-EuRSjG for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:37:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII (87-92-140-94.rev.dnainternet.fi [87.92.140.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F2DD57A for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:37:21 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:37:19 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20200817083719.GA994273@LK-Perkele-VII>
References: <4025d64f-9d7d-5474-b3ce-d2829d3a0df1@cs.tcd.ie> <4675a341-c465-4ee3-8215-3b2317a9d132@www.fastmail.com> <8a609aeb-91f1-96a8-705b-135b346a41b4@cs.tcd.ie> <ME2PR01MB3011511E2F548C53F7D699A6E55F0@ME2PR01MB3011.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ME2PR01MB3011511E2F548C53F7D699A6E55F0@ME2PR01MB3011.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/ZpwO7Fh7qvHpH4dhFAvZYy9NJKw>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] review of draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke-05
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:37:28 -0000

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 01:59:32AM +0000, Manger, James wrote:
> HTTP/2 Version Identification https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-3.1
> took a different approach to this issue. It defined the final string
> "h2"; said only implementations of the final, published RFC can use
> that; earlier implementations MUST NOT use that; they can use
> "h2-<draft-number>", eg "h2-17"; a note to the rfc-editor asked for
> this text to be remove in the final RFC.

And on what other things did, Websockets (RFC 6455) had version number
that was the draft number of last incompatible change. And it happened
that the final version number in the RFC (13), was not the same as the
final draft number (17). The preceeding version to that was 8.

ACME (RFC 8555) would have used sequential version numbers for
incompatible method versions, starting from -01, but turns out that no
such changes happened for any published method (one method got version
-02, but was latter scrapped entierely).


-Ilari