Re: [Dtls-iot] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dice-profile-14

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 14 September 2015 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dtls-iot@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtls-iot@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1762C1B3D85; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Vq4AXpEVhzij; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CD11B2FA6; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA22DBE4D; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:27:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZL2hwEx35Dp; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:27:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9495DBDCC; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:27:51 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1442237271; bh=hQAaKZGLRBjDhknpGVo5Xxuveg2co9tIi/IpydUBBs8=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LqCjQFqzJhmc3JE/DYrLK3K4Q5T+snJALoVFhSG/C2xohp6PXdryj+Iy1CmZrfNIk iR4sJuqb6/ArDY88uAusgpSSTGpJnPCv4SPzLZbg8SG9JjCD47ar2FqTikuPeGehbF mQNDvGkTa2RRmPdB97oaF4MS78PGaye7GN7DIanM=
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-dice-profile.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <55E63507.40404@gmail.com> <55EF35FA.5020709@gmx.net>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <55F6CB57.4050408@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 14:27:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55EF35FA.5020709@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Kga7UeebPD2mtUg0Xron1aJmnNMovVfwD"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtls-iot/cvJ--X0OqWJXZMcIti_KB3s6PyI>
Cc: "dtls-iot@ietf.org" <dtls-iot@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dtls-iot] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-dice-profile-14
X-BeenThere: dtls-iot@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DTLS for IoT discussion list <dtls-iot.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtls-iot>, <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtls-iot/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtls-iot@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtls-iot>, <mailto:dtls-iot-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 13:27:59 -0000

Hi Brian, Hannes,

On 08/09/15 20:24, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> > The downref to RFC7251 was not mentioned in the last call and that RFC isn't
>> > in the downref registry. ((Yes, I've been in the IESG and I know how
>> > annoying this can be, but it's a process glitch.))
>> > 
> Thanks for pointing this out.

Yep, mea culpa for not spotting that. However, RFC 7252 (CoAP, a PS)
also has a normative reference to 7251, on which basis I think we can
safely claim that this is no longer a downref. Actually, it looks
like the downref also wasn't called out in the CoAP IETF LC, but I
guess the sky didn't fall, so that's ok:-) And recall that the
definition of an ok downref is one that's "accepted by the community"
(says [1]) and I think CoAP is as is AES-CCM.

I plan to add 7251 to the downref registry [2] shortly, and to put the
DICE profile on the Oct 1 IESG telechat. If however, that's too much
of a process sin, there's still time to do another IETF LC on the
DICE profile without affecting the timing. So while I figure we're ok
without that, I'll do the 2nd IETF LC if anyone yells now.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967#section-3
[2] https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry