Re: [Pce] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 3, 2024, at 17:13, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: Yes
> 
> 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>       Implementations that support multiple versions of the TLS protocol MUST
>       prefer to negotiate the latest version of the TLS protocol.
> 
> I'm a little confused why this needs to be stated as an update, as this is a
> general requirement of TLS (or any versioned protocol really)

I hear this phrase all the time: There is no document that specifies how to do protocol X with Y. You can reply that the “normal” updates procedure addresses this issue, but 99 times out of 100 times you’re going to get a quizzical look. This statement closeout that discussion.

> It might be useful to point to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8446#section-4.2.1 that deals with how
> to negotiate allowing TLS 1.2 when also supporting and preferring TLS 1.3.

I mean if everybody read and remembered all the detail … More seriously, without this document there are some I believe that wouldn’t ever have read RFC 8446 and happy move along.  I can add a ref to 4.2.1; see the following PR:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/20

Cheers,
spt