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

[Orie Steele <[e-mail]>]

I defer to the experts.

I assumed that the document is safe to implement ignoring the notes (both
notes could have been removed).

Since they were included and I read the related comment on confidentiality,
I was confused enough to risk embarrassment.

If I were an implementer of this, I might be slightly annoyed reading
context for a feature that I was just forbidden from using.

If you think the extra context will be appreciated by implementers, I
suggest leaving it as is.

OS



On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 1:10 PM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 


ORIE STEELE
Chief Technology Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://transmute.industries>