IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] Consensus call for changing intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk

Fabian Mauchle <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch> Fri, 02 February 2024 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4226DC14F70F for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=switch.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2XrDrv1Se_Dp for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:55:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.switch.ch (mx3.switch.ch [85.235.88.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1FEEC14F709 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:55:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=switch.ch; l=1502; s=selector1; t=1706867735; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gP+aDG1M74MpkVu6MnfvT/GKxnu+cem01Jpls6Win+Q=; b=WjBvPtfLgUrS7ogwZVUKLEscSXwkqWw9VyuvWijHiVRTmTSALUz0hDjw ZNcenk/BQ0PMJ+GJ+PiMa16haRqPVPpDx/jSlE78oyNKWM12d8saR37GW PsBDPPlya54Fto/rPOrAkmbvOFHxeDuuCkORFzLBytZA6laRvAuJKN6jA dbc17xDCWuUKK3Swzq/4IP3T8vn6qYdbECY4jN7/MYhPR9FXy2mqJEvRG nyDXR0HJcL77If+O2epnQkNiyj1T0dOCv0nfAE95Dd2O1rdU3zeL1nLKh nHnUr+pEdE2Up5/WkOT9P76ivf0Nl3fpRehU8ImbKCH5Vloc1NQBYhHzQ w==;
X-IronPort-MAIL-FROM: fabian.mauchle@switch.ch
X-IronPort-RCPT-TO: radext@ietf.org
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,237,1701126000"; d="scan'208";a="6962843"
Received: from unknown (HELO SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch) ([172.16.60.11]) by mx3int.switch.ch with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Feb 2024 10:55:31 +0100
Received: from [192.168.0.192] (172.16.60.33) by SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.39; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:55:30 +0100
Message-ID: <d3abdba6-e70c-4bff-986a-bb956f7a829c@switch.ch>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 10:55:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, de-CH
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <003c01da4f63$0109b160$031d1420$@smyslov.net>
From: Fabian Mauchle <fabian.mauchle@switch.ch>
In-Reply-To: <003c01da4f63$0109b160$031d1420$@smyslov.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.16.60.33]
X-ClientProxiedBy: SWH-S05-EXC3.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.14) To SWH-S02-EXC1.swd.switch.ch (172.16.60.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/kreLzgnS8zvLP6Afj1C6x62TsE8>
Subject: Re: [radext] Consensus call for changing intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:55:39 -0000

Hi,

Being relatively new to this, I'm not sure I fully understand the extent 
of this. So I'm trying to learn from examples.

On 25.01.2024 08:49, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> the current intended RFC status of draft-ietf-radext-tls-psk is
> Informational.
> As it was recently discussed in the ML [1], there seems to be an interest
> in changing the intended RFC status for this draft to BCP.

IIRC the RFC status is described in RFC2026.

 From the description of the 'Informational' status, "[...] does not 
represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation." I think 
it's definitely not a good fit.



Whether BCP is the correct status, I do lack a bit of understanding what 
that actually implies.
RFC2026 talks about technical statement (TS) and applicability statement 
(AS) - i guess tls-psk would fall into the latter category - but never 
mentions how TS and AS would influence the choice of status.

On the other hand, BCPs (can) consist of multiple RFC, so BCP would not 
just be the RFC status, but also be assigned a BCP number?

So I'm a bit lost whether applicability statements should just be 
standards-track or BCPs. Any educational material appreciated.

In that regard I **do support** changing the intended status, but I 
would abstain from selecting an intended status.

BR,
Fabian

-- 
Fabian Mauchle
Network
NOC:   +41 44 268 15 30
Direct:+41 44 268 15 39

Switch
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email