Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-02

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
>
>