Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-tls-grease

[Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>]

OK. Impacting the version number stream was a new thing to my eye. Seemed
worth asking.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:52 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 13, 2019, at 10:37, Carl Wallace <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
> > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
> area
> > directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
> > just like any other last call comments.
> >
> > This document describes a mechanism to prevent extensibility failures in
> > the TLS ecosystem.  It reserves a set of TLS protocol values that may be
> > advertised to ensure peers correctly handle unknown values. Aside from a
> > nit/question, the document is ready.
> >
> > The question relates to language in section 2. which states: "The values
> > allocated above are thus no longer available for use as TLS or DTLS
> > [RFC6347] version numbers." Should this draft be marked as updating 6347
> > and 8446 as a result? At present it is Informational and does not update
> > any other specifications.
>
> I tend to think that an updates header is not required.  RFCs that
> allocate and reserve code points do not need to update the RFC that
> originally created them.  For example, RFC5764/RFC7983 reserve a block of
> TLS ContentType space and neither of the those drafts updated the base TLS
> spec.
>
> spt
>
>