Re: [mile] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-mile-rolie-10

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I think that one could make the case that using TLS 1.2 (or higher) greatly
> facilitates having a secure system, and so it could plausibly be required
> by a consuming protocol.

The problem here is that the protocol is actually HTTP.  And that
protocol has requirements already.  A recommendation to use TLS 1.2 is
fine, but that is already part of RFC 7525.

>> needed.  Similarly, the prohibition on the use of 0-RTT is groundless.  The
>
> I am a little surprised to hear you say that this prohibition is "groundless".
> Given that we require consumers of TLS 1.3 0-RTT data to explictly specify
> an application profile for how it may be used, with the intent to induce
> a careful analysis of the security considerations for sending early data
> messages, it seems quite reasonable to me that a protocol author might
> wish to defer such a painstaking analysis and take the easy choice of
> prohibiting early data.

This is quite explicitly using HTTP, which has a profile (work in
progress).  If that profile is somehow inadequate, then a case should
be made in the draft explaining why (hence the choice of the word).  A
reference to TLS 1.3 also has the unfortunate effect of delaying
publication of this draft.