Re: [Pce] Thinking about draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13

Thanks Russ & Adrian!

I have updated the working copy with this commit ->
https://github.com/dhruvdhody/draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13/commit/05027a5251a0290bd8c960b2c03aa2b13ae01c79

Dhruv

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Wfm, thnx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
> Sent: 14 October 2022 14:58
> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Thinking about draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13
>
> Maybe the phrase should be: PCEP implementations that support TLS 1.3 MUST
> ...
>
> Russ
>
> > On Oct 14, 2022, at 9:28 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Rus.
> >
> > What I didn't express well (don't write emails when you have been doing
> hard
> > concentration work for 9.5 hours straight!) is that it is possible to
> think
> > that this work is telling all PCEP implementations what they must do. I
> have
> > spoken to one person who was very worried that this was updating what
> their
> > existing implementation would need to do.
> >
> > I'm clear that the intention is to describe what PCEPS implementations
> that
> > support TLS 1.3 are supposed to do, and that doesn't have any knock-on
> for
> > other work, but, yes, a very simple addition of "of this specification"
> > makes all the concerns go away.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
> > Sent: 14 October 2022 13:46
> > To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> > Cc: draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Thinking about draft-dhody-pce-pceps-tls13
> >
> > Adrian:
> >
> > TLS 1.2 does not have early data, and the algorithm registries arefor TLS
> > 1.2 and TLS 1.3 are separate, o I do not think there is confusion.  That
> > said, I do not object to adding the phrase.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >> On Oct 13, 2022, at 5:42 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for kicking off work to get PCEP able to work with TLS1.3.
> >>
> >> This is important.
> >>
> >> However... :-)
> >>
> >> I think it would be helpful to clarify that statements about what
> >> implementations must or must not do (etc.) should be scoped as
> >> "implementations of this document." That is, you are not constraining
> PCEP
> >> implementations in general, and I don't even thing you are constraining
> >> TLS1.2 PCEP implementations. Well, if it was your intent to do
> otherwise,
> >> you really need to be clear that you are updating the base specs, but I
> > hope
> >> you're not.
> >>
> >> Further, I am worried about the use of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis as a
> >> normative reference. I understand that the long term intention is that
> > that
> >> draft will obsolete RFC 8446, but it seems to be moving slowly (if at
> all
> > -
> >> it has expired). I think that implementers wanting to apply TLS1.3 to
> > their
> >> PCEP code will want to pick up TLS1.3 implementations that are stable
> > (i.e.,
> >> based on RFCs). Now, by the time this draft gets to completion, it is
> > quite
> >> possible that 8446bis will have completed, and the draft can be updated
> to
> >> reference it and pick any additional points it makes. On the other hand,
> > if
> >> this draft makes it to the RFC Editor queue before 8446bis is complete,
> I
> >> don't think you'd want it to sit around, and a subsequent bis can be
> made
> >> when 8446bis becomes an RFC.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>