Re: [Sidrops] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal - ENDS Nov 26 2018 (11/26/2018)

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> Fri, 04 January 2019 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080A812EB11 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 07:08:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g20uQqQFyOIn for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 07:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EEF12DD85 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 07:08:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.192.27] (dhcp-089-098-091-015.chello.nl [89.98.91.15]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8A79277DE; Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:08:18 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1546614498; bh=f/yt1dIPOL+f6YDd9z/N+y2+M8GaQh2TqAoIJHFtr+U=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=uZ6EyyakzSGXFVPCvV7PXwzshruk8inI/mxLqeASVbKjLqJmrZxf8yTeDff3lQ6SW jICITWjADKUyMePsIzgvS2R4KpdUOljZQw9/efgovPtcLwQs3iOT7RddBW4XYYgeSk CmKsmCsZegh2HSLZN/xKSGAULMd8F9WG8+yKX5ak=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20181220160248.204fa146@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:08:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A2D26666-46CE-4272-8F9F-9DAB1359F9CF@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <CAL9jLaZCqPnL_-gf3KV4fxWCa7hZuBkhyZDOkAqa=_s1sj7Mzg@mail.gmail.com> <0403D83D-7886-4E49-873A-78181A8BCFA4@nlnetlabs.nl> <CACWOCC8veqMgKjgaFp6Fg_q0E4Qo=jj-aWTnfu2AkeXDjK6FSw@mail.gmail.com> <0FD77962-7633-4B34-BBFE-42A668498E2B@nlnetlabs.nl> <20181220160248.204fa146@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/znz89o1c223s-kK5JDW9EYLF4Os>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal - ENDS Nov 26 2018 (11/26/2018)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 15:08:24 -0000

Hi all,

Any objections to me making the following changes?
* remove the blank line after the comments
* no longer allow data to be used when TLS verification fails (MUST NOT..)

I would really appreciate some voices pro / con, and then spin a hopefully final version asap that I can ask last call on, again.

Tim


> On 20 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> wrote:
> 
> Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2018, at 17:14, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Section 2.1 "ASCII" should probably be UTF-8, this is 2018 and we
>>> are the IETF  
>> 
>> So, the machines will most likely ignore this anyway. I guess that
>> UTF-8 should be okay, provided we restrict the allowed line breaks to
>> <CRLF> or <LF> for these lines as well. So maybe rephrase:
>> 
>> Current:
>> 
>>   1.  an optional comment section consisting of one or more lines
>>       starting with the '#' character, containing human readable
>>       informational ASCII text, followed by an empty line using a
>>       "<CRLF>" or "<LF>" line break only.
>> 
>> New:
>> 
>>   1.  an optional comment section consisting of one or more lines
>>       starting with the '#' character, containing human readable
>>       informational UTF-8 text, and ending with a "<CRLF>" or 
>>       "<LF>" line break. Followed by an empty line using a
>>       "<CRLF>" or "<LF>" line break only.
> 
> I don’t quite see why the empty line after the comment is necessary at
> all. Since all the comment lines start with a hash, the end of the
> comment section can be identified by the first line not starting with a
> hash.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops