IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 03 April 2018 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F2A128954; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, 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=cooperw.in header.b=GkD+bmvP; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nL2eJQxy
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 zMs_b_xkohs7; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 668BD1271DF; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F492215F7; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:30:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=oNjBAuxrXk29AO2XcXZe9gV9xKEFM a8iMrax1S3J5R8=; b=GkD+bmvPC53C5vFSQn5ZvRNDhopOd7EzDUm5MM2Tw1ZGH rB5jSYMiAX6pp+MGrD9bBLvAbkUzoEmHoHlt6H4BEjbWoMzmG8aac5663N2WUj8z 4t4frpTvTq2b4usuwGeF4Zmq7cqtTOV9yFjpRK5PuQtCxVymUJhb+Vd8x2VtVwn5 pYTU4LRUGvcXWYQu2Ml/D2IroYIP4G38K4/dSjXqWcqxyrz8tIqtPq8qOAy2YpKM mBjPAACad2xdAZ5HHXCmp1USymJtVffy1nGylNK0QD6G74//CrsicranZVvXh8Hf 8EWEeNadqKOOpqHBDRQQr62QQ/v0xJwo9HIWA6f8A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=oNjBAu xrXk29AO2XcXZe9gV9xKEFMa8iMrax1S3J5R8=; b=nL2eJQxyu8P2gZimi46Dh3 thf4ZoWC10QOEJ+9gEwwNPrU1j25pmDVGy0sPtT0Rlz6IF/HVeka8QgmNinRxqzE 6xRkBf/rh6b8Mw9+uFVz6xySPSd09mfBF/rUU4L+8q4gy3Tc5/jr9USslMSar3XL czEh5KdSmQTgWEOxcwHs7gcY1k8COEv69x+dkAdoFHquKAr+OOA0WoIhnEvTQ7uo aZ/CkqbP6IF28YDicBx7FgzWb4AWKyIWSQBIZr346kz90WaX6nLeNv9baUiROcPT /yUd2w+3LIwsR2HJ1I7GQVDiBlDfz5Fp9GtbwNGtd9QWF061ja0YFWPidnst4rvw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:IJDDWtbtgrdtC3_Dlk76B7FJJXzXOnryOsjUeeFqbOF7uK-sf1Ka_Q>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro3.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.78]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1FF84E4437; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <0EF565D9-C1F4-480A-9D01-8BAEB616736E@sn3rd.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:30:55 -0400
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0AF5DCA7-7DD2-4B10-BB3D-05AA0276A2C5@cooperw.in>
References: <151915624732.3939.12189669437030269709@ietfa.amsl.com> <C398E12E-1121-4182-B297-2CDC710C9731@sn3rd.com> <AD0D8AD0-DC69-4254-B525-7D0C3545B05F@vigilsec.com> <0EF565D9-C1F4-480A-9D01-8BAEB616736E@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Xs6YDW8Hief6y5lOENHUMHlkr9c>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:31:04 -0000

Stewart, thanks for your review. Sean, thanks for the updates. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:21, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>> 
>>>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but
>>>> cannot find any formal guidance.
>>> 
>>> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.  draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet.  There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay.
>>> 
>> 
>> If another update top the document is needed, then it does not seem hard to comply with the coming convention.
> 
> Just an FYI I plan to object to the coming convention :)
> 
>> ======
>>>> 
>>>> If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
>>>> SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”.
>>> 
>>> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO.  I can go either way on whether
>>> marked as not recommended = NO
>>> not marked as recommended = NO
>>> 
>>> WG - thoughts?
>> 
>> I think the second wording is more clear.
> 
> fixed
> 
>>>> =======
>>>> SB>  I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no.
>>>> SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended,
>>>> SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these
>>>> SB> states does Recommended = no represent?
>>> 
>>> There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is.  I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES.
>> 
>> It would be more clear is Section 6 said that each parameter will have either "yes" or "no" in the new recommended column.
> 
> Can do:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>  The instructions in this document add a Recommended column to many of the
>  TLS registries
> 
> NEW:
> 
>  The instructions in this document add a Recommended column with a value
>  of YES or NO to many of the (D)TLS registries
> 
> PR: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/63
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email