Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl> Mon, 11 January 2021 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C124F3A0F4A; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 shn-akYhOBHO; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 561F73A0F2E; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1895360199; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:38:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1610379524; bh=WplK4O+dzegLdb86foe45z93uztugB4hrVTe2u1Av7M=; h=To:Cc:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=BO6ZaUB27UVtno4BvJB2PBlk4xXP8jri/FNsQcH8JCNU3N8uiPzkmVETCzhRdHdlv CPTcvCECxeadIQUqB3Q3EUPY1OY5UkG0bl3F1Bn96PTnGGOfKWuStaEgF3/BmN45yl 2TCOErLl5VYkSCqFIjIWe4vyjF/Jzax8n8yNQb8Envvzktpn0VPZcYFCXAhy4P3rrG FRjBZEv3udwwqbFJ/dDAxoaM890WZcoYuRdVc4vBivvp+OqMX7IViEn3qjMXS/8zPC CJFng7o5Gr8WP/95WD0qeTU1zYhSKGaEriY0kAEEVM7VRps91FT3M5xRdMn+x1XA8o nBLjHhEUQa54A==
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
References: <160807684262.8322.15298996984520658766@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <5ab2bdc2-5481-05ef-8549-8f6a86ec6dca@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:38:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160807684262.8322.15298996984520658766@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FVigLG4ocN3WZw2PPLuoSUy3MMQ>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:38:49 -0000

Thank you Roman for your review,

Op 16-12-2020 om 01:00 schreef Roman Danyliw via Datatracker:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ** Section 7.  For future agility, should a “recommended” column be
> sub-registry just as was added to
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4
> or is the thinking that there will only be serial updates of the cookie
> algorithm where concurrent use is not expected?

I think that this is not necessary as we do not expect new algorithms to
be added any time soon.  I suppose we could still consider it when and
if it becomes an issue.

Your other comments have been addressed in a revised document that will
be posted for review soon.

Cheers,
-- Willem

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>