Re: [OPSAWG] SHEPHERD REVIEW: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-07

["Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for refreshing my memory.  The clutter argument is sound.  I do wish we would have gotten a SEC DIR review, but it will certainly get some eyes from the IESG.

I’ll mention this point in the shepherd write-up, and we’ll leave things the way they are text-wise for now.

Joe

From: Kenneth Vaughn <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:51
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SHEPHERD REVIEW: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-07
The concept of automatically registering new hash algorithms was discussed during a May e-mail thread. Jürgen objected to the automatic recording of values and Tom Petch argued for the automatic registration.

While I don't think we ever achieved "agreement" on the position, we concluded with consensus (i.e., no sustained objections) on the wording in the current draft due to the fact that there was agreement that there was no requirement for our fingerprint to use the same hash as used by the TLS layer (and thus no technical requirement to link the two registries). From that point, we concluded that if anyone wanted a value, they "would find the energy to register it" and we would not clutter the registry with unnecessary values.

Personally, I see the argument on both sides and am fine with the consensus. However, I could perhaps see softening the expert review statement to automatically approve the request to add any hash algorithm that is already approved for any version of TLS or DTLS rather than fording a consultation with the TLS WG.

I've made the other changes, but will hold off on implementing them until we resolve this issue..

Regards,
Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC
6606 FM 1488 RD #148-503
Magnolia, TX 77354
[phone] cell
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
www.trevilon.com<http://www.trevilon.com>


On Sep 27, 2022, at 10:36 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I am reviewing -07 of this draft ahead of the shepherd review.  I have found a few nits, but at a larger level, I think more text might be needed for IANA around how to handle the new TLS hash registry.  Currently, the draft talks about a sync to “IANA TLS HashAlgorithm Registry”, which is good.  But what if new values get added to the cipher suites registry?  For example, what about GOST variants?  I would think if the TLS 1.3 spec (and their experts) allow for these algorithms would this registry not just take them?  What would the expert review consider when adding new algorithms here?

In terms of nits:

Search for “ciphersuites” and change to “cipher suites” as that is more consistent with other documents (and I think you use both in this document).


Section 2.1:

s/Values zero through 2/Values 0 through 2/


Section 2.3:

s/stated that TLSTM/states that TLSTM/


Section 3.1:

s/request, offer or use/request, offer, or use/


Section 7

Add a period to the end of the section.

Joe