Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Tue, 12 December 2023 04:55 UTC
Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
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 80A47C23960C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:55:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dhruvdhody-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pque4c080CMS for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa1-x34.google.com (mail-oa1-x34.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7A5DC403997 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa1-x34.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1f055438492so3971026fac.3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:55:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1702356939; x=1702961739; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=mlrn5+ZnY7z4r/WgD4LmeERTkD6Qxp9zcvp1tA/19Ys=; b=YI/9cAK7ojaJIjzHCFrT6z4zOiUBlgEsjTIwF6eVs1RSJmvEoT+KbKjI6Q4g7TO7V4 Bjxnd2KYLk3JtN4LoJHCSgJiqrEtw7LYlBByPuoUdLYL1YaLoFrXWxOGxBvOQywh8H0u qphyBQ7WUwog+PbPCQE41CQy+D0jJmiSOvMm0nxZdKTIhbMdBMTzEC33KbQ1sYCEYPCj T8T0GNCuJwxlRPwad49o/4oXkKKFhZMMT/nzAOMRGeKCI2wTLaCJDHLOR9tkmDe8SV1h MiVHN6OlnV94YwkbJqIMygPvb/0rEv8wMhtHguXMjzMp44Ea7rpsTQKPBAoUMQlRKUsZ UpTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702356939; x=1702961739; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=mlrn5+ZnY7z4r/WgD4LmeERTkD6Qxp9zcvp1tA/19Ys=; b=Tf16abgQnPLVhmirN4BaGX1OBw1rfw6+YKs9oBbOJ5DAxK+5lMMGwjvyILRYaL2t9a BMW21ZgMJg5+jmsk1ePd8oZxHWakm8J2WywTcNwp1WdnLrmubfFGvBJRlg3LdIF4EOn5 DsVYeQXnLfaV8j5lcbKnJO1e/vJCo/DxqPvIuikMxUTtPoflYUewS7Em4AaTMoAaXYlh L7BWoM5S5UyZbo9js7DJtA5AuspVrm+NThcFM5U7Y891l4DLE6M/Zvhjp3fFKLyCgKaP DYiGM/vYIVWI9mRLCV+qibb9EYgYz0tGhe0VDT3DnNbMMDZiqrXpSHr6DFQXNvMdJiuQ /Zgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxPEqkJ5CVMyJzeD7leHnbybFUY1yvNWt5O4usuWBMEcVpSUCTi kv0QkJmATRd797h8CWGpLzKRcdsUo4ap6PffAMizkw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGvBYV0HhkG6VOVc2jwsB4R+66CFIIhzfn4jnPj5UhCOcMsUvT7jTM+PpwwMvben2pRby92wabAUXxdZGsEjY8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:28a8:b0:1e9:da6f:a161 with SMTP id bq40-20020a05687128a800b001e9da6fa161mr7158926oac.3.1702356939437; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:55:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170203631643.25271.3343940506201552538@ietfa.amsl.com> <0CCFDFF7-BA6A-4DE3-939F-CD82F2FDD9E0@vigilsec.com> <HE1PR07MB4441EEDA5501B8B5C1500893938FA@HE1PR07MB4441.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <3E9A1A76-65BF-4B46-9432-D16FF55AC92B@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <3E9A1A76-65BF-4B46-9432-D16FF55AC92B@vigilsec.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:25:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5Y2U=nMURXBxgVv_znHd96xNuh37NCkbEeaj4x-9xAjXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13.all@ietf.org>, Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a80952060c48dc23"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/q31F8tNpklDIYdwBGBbim5RMRC0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 12 Dec 2023 04:55:44 -0000
Hi Christer, On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 1:05 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote: > Hi Christer. > > >> Section 2.3 of RFC 8446 explains that the security provided to early > data is > >> weaker than > >> the security provided to other kinds of TLS data. This is the reason > that > >> PCEPS MUST NOT > >> make use of early data. Will a note with a pointer to this text (or a > >> pointer to the same part > >> of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis) resolve this minor issue? > > > > The second Note already points to the text in Section 2.3 of 8446. My > issue is > > not the fact that early data security is weaker, but why that is an > issues for > > PCEPS. Is there some specific property of requirement for PCEPS behind > the > > MUST NOT? > > We are simply saying that PCEPS MUST NOT use early data. We could not > find a case where it is needed today, and we are concerned that sone future > evolution of PCEPS might use it without understanding the associated > security risk. > > Dhruv: And the same guidance has been issued in RFC9190 and draft-ietf-netconf-over-tls13 (past IETF LC). Thanks! Dhruv > Russ > > > >> On Dec 8, 2023, at 6:51 AM, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker > >> <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > >> Review result: Almost Ready > >> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > >> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > >> any other last call comments. > >> > >> For more information, please see the FAQ at > >> > >> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. > >> > >> Document: draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02 > >> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > >> Review Date: 2023-12-08 > >> IETF LC End Date: 2023-12-19 > >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > >> > >> Summary: The document is well written, and easy to understand. I do > >> have one Minor issue/question and a few Editorial issues/questions > >> that I would like the authors to address. > >> > >> Major issues: N/A > >> > >> Minor issues: > >> > >> Q1:Section 3 adds text saying that PCEPS implementations MUST NOT use > >> early data, and there are a couple of notes about what early data is. > >> However, I cannot find text which explains the "MUST NOT use". If the > >> case where early media is permitted does not apply to PCEPS it would > >> be good to add text which explains it. It would also be good to > >> explain the reason in the Introduction of this document. > >> > >> Nits/editorial comments: > >> > >> Q2:In a few places the text says "TLS protocol", and in other places > "TLS". > >> Would it be possible to use "TLS" everywhere? > >> > >> Q3: Section 6 indicates that there are no known implementations when > >> version > >> -02 of the draft was posted. If that is still the case when the RFC is > >> published, could the whole section be removed? > >> > >> Q4: Related to Q3, if the section remains (e.g., because there are > >> known implementations), I suggest to say "time of publishing this > >> document" instead of "time of posting of this Internet-Draft". > >> > >> > >> -- > >> last-call mailing list > >> last-call@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > > -- > > last-call mailing list > > last-call@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call > >
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Christer Holmberg via Datatracker
- Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review… Christer Holmberg