Re: [kitten] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-14: (with DISCUSS)

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

I see, I missed that the suggested changes had removed this, or possibly
forgot to bring it up before applying them. If the text no longer
matches the header I agree they should match, but I still feel strongly
that this should in fact update TLS 1.3, which makes it sound as if
there are no channel bindings for TLS 1.3 (except now there are, so that
sounds like an update to me and something that's important to make
discoverable).

—Sam

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 16:08, Martin Duke wrote:
> Yep , I have no opinion on whether it should be updated, but the
> header and the text should match.
>
> That said, if there is no consensus that seems like a bigger issue.
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:59 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> I think that the proximate topic here is that Martin is noticing a
>> mismatch between the in-document header (the "Updates:" header) and
>> the prose of the document.  That's my fault; I sent you suggestions
>> that removed the header but forgot to touch the prose at all, and if
>> I had done so, I don't think Martin would have raised the topic
>> (Martin, please correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> On the question of whether or not "updates" is correct, I think that
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YZQWmP_8BDkacfy3O-qcy8EV2N0/
>> (from a TLS WG co-chair) is a good summary -- the current "normal"
>> for TLS is to not use the header for this sort of thing.
>>
>> It also notes that the question of what text (if any) to put in the
>> ongoing 8446bis effort is more important, long-term, than whether to
>> use the "updates" header here.  That is, RFC 8446 itself will
>> probably only be current for a couple years and then the successor
>> will be current, so any "updates" relationship would become stale at
>> that point.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> P.S. Sean also mentioned draft-ietf-ace-coap-est in the linked
>>      message, and there are changes in flight for that document to
>>      refer to draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 03:26:00PM -0500, Sam Whited wrote:
>> > I do not believe there was consensus one way or another on this.
>> >
>> > The strong feedback was by one or two members of the TLS working
>> > group and I do not believe it was correct or represented consensus.
>> > Unless those people that complained *do* represent consensus among
>> > that working group and intend to block publication of this document
>> > based on it (and if they do, I wish they had said so earlier during
>> > the discussion and not let the matter drop), I would like it to
>> > move forward with the "updates" line in place if at all possible.
>> >
>> > —Sam
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 14:43, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 11:41:36AM -0800, Martin Duke via
>> > > Datatracker wrote:
>> > >> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-
>> > >> 14: Discuss
>> > >>
>> > >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply
>> > >> to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel
>> > >> free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Please refer to
>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for
>> > >> more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
>> > >> positions.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
>> > >> here:
>> > >>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13/
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> -------
>> > >> DISCUSS:
>> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >> -------
>> > >>
>> > >> A simple thing: the document header should state that it updates
>> > >> RFC 8446.
>> > >
>> > > No, it should not.
>> > >
>> > > This topic was discussed with the TLS WG and there was strong
>> > > feedback that the use of the "Updates:" header was inappropriate.
>> > >
>> > > See the thread at
>> > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vH74JoSGYpJv7Tcem60L3RtNa9U/
>> > >
>> > > -Ben
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sam Whited
>>

-- 
Sam Whited