Re: [kitten] Status update on draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-15

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 26/04/2022 17:35, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 16:34, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> i am confused how an Updates: call is depending on consensus. either
>> it updates something said in that document or it doesn't.
>>
>> in theory this cannot be a subjective call?
>
> The shortish version of the argument is as follows:
>
> 1) The desire to include "Updates: RFC 8446" header in
> draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-15 is to make the new
> TLS 1.3 channel binding "tls-exporter" be discoverable by SASL/GSSAPI
> implementors.
>
> 2) "Updates" header is typically used to make implementors of the
> updated RFC be aware of important fixes (in particular changes in
> behavior) or mandatory extensions. In the past it was sometimes used by
> optional extensions, but this practice is not generally supported now.
>
> 3) TLS WG now uses higher bar for other documents to include "Updates:
> RFC 8446". Optional extensions (such as
> draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-15) don't meet this bar.
>
> 4) draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-15 doesn't define a
> mandatory-to-implement extension for TLS 1.3 implementations. Because of
> 2) and 3) it must not include "Updates: RFC 8446". Additionally,
> implementors can discover this extension through a) IANA registry of
> channel bindings or b) through Updates: 5801 (SCRAM) or Updates: 5929
> (Channel Bindings for TLS). RFC 5801 is the most likely reason why
> people would implement any TLS channel binding in the first place.

Alexey

My initial reaction was that you were spot on but re-reading the I-D and 
RFC, the problem is that RFC8446 says that there are no channel bindings 
which is rather off-putting.  If it had said 'at this time' 'for future 
study' or some such then I would not see a problem.  It is the somewhat 
dogmatic 'are not defined for TLS1.3' that I think will mislead people 
and warrants an update.

Perhaps an Erratum for RFC8446 would do the trick.

Tom Petch

>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alexey
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Apr 25, 2022, at 16:11, Alexey
>>> Melnikov<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Quick status update on this.
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-15 includes
>>> "Updates: RFC 8446".
>>>
>>> After reviewing various mailing list discussions, I confirm that
>>> inclusion of this header in the draft doesn't represent IETF
>>> consensus. So the header needs to be taken out. Sam, I know that this
>>> is not what you personally prefer, but are you willing to make the
>>> change?
>>>
>>> The document also needs to have a "Yes" ballot from one of current
>>> IESG members. So I separately asked Paul Wouters (our new Sec AD) to
>>> do the document review.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Alexey, as a KITTEN chair
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kitten mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten