Re: [Pce] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

More inline...

> On Jan 4, 2024, at 01:02, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: No Objection
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-pce-pceps-tls13/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Further to Eric's comment, I'm completely confused by question #4 of the
> shepherd writeup.  While the document claims there are no implementations
> known, the shepherd writeup says there's at least one (and it was easy), and
> makes another "Yes" remark that I don't understand.

Addressed in an earlier email.

> Forwarding a comment from Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:
> 
> Noting the comment on 0-RTT / early data regarding secrecy, and the comment on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8253#section-3.4
> 
> *  Negotiation of a ciphersuite providing for confidentiality is  RECOMMENDED.
> 
> I'm not an expert on PCEPS, but I wonder why the need for the note at all given
> PCEPs only recommends confidentiality, and the requirement above states early
> data is forbidden.

Ah okay I see you saying the bit about not forward secret isn’t really needed here if confidentiality is just recommended. I think practical terms  though confidentiality is a MUST because all the ciphersuites in s3.4 of RFC 8253 use AES_GCM.

In terms of this I-D thought, we could do:

OLD:

  In particular, early data is not
  forward secret, and there is no protection against the replay of
  early data between connections.

NEW:

   In particular, no replay protection is provided for early data.

However, the sentence as written is true.  So …. should I take out the reference to FS or leave it in?

spt