Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org> Thu, 16 November 2017 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <amanda.baber@iana.org>
X-Original-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D26E129571; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:18:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 B8JSEa-oQkpy; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382FF129465; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:18:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:18:07 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:18:07 -0800
From: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org>
To: David Mazieres expires 2018-02-13 PST <mazieres-6vm3zi3vsu8ippu9bvivnhykes@temporary-address.scs.stanford.edu>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
CC: "tcpinc@ietf.org" <tcpinc@ietf.org>, "tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org" <tcpinc-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTXYD0iP69JvORRU27r2ZcpJ1+aqMWxHGAgABthwA=
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:18:06 +0000
Message-ID: <ED95F5CB-0E14-46D4-B344-17D58310AB82@iana.org>
References: <151036581280.449.10740505473540594433.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD495EF@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CABcZeBPfk6Pi=_UPvTBaS9jQBYjExUdqkdX5Q--iUuyCv_qZtw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nWpVhm4oTT+SLyG-nk=ww7nBU-DaVe86rUU-LGGqJvHvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO0TD0KnpTfe6CbHUoiS=FmGiGW6r_mFMH_9bYFWKqKLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNp=1c1cx0+nJezjWy_Q4N9-PUeQuqOU_k7A7KhRj18EQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4BB57@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CABcZeBPL2mVFtsL77Bdr=BUf7cb+qe_+Wxq42AtoohHmSmJaCg@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4BDAB@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <877euu7hy0.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4D450@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <87vaieow9k.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> <CABcZeBPxOaK3DN5u0ohizt8rAQ+tShMuOcdpJBJ-2fmMJuQWgA@mail.gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949362FD4FC09@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com> <CABcZeBNazxnSaRFokk9Jk88F6L9zOYrrjcAbLwwQwKsk2WUvnQ@mail.gmail.com> <D8CC2964-B7C3-44B5-A104-64FB8F628CD2@kuehlewind.net> <199E434C-FAD5-4AB1-9EF6-4384390F7FD8@iana.org> <874lpvxag0.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <874lpvxag0.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3593636288_460689659"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/Ltb6yLU05JuNHHEXIhYSmfHIGtM>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tcpinc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <tcpinc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpinc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpinc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc>, <mailto:tcpinc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:18:11 -0000

Hi David,

This works for us. Thanks!

Amanda

On 11/15/17, 5:46 PM, "David Mazieres" <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu> wrote:

Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org> writes:

> I guess if we want expert review for non-IETF stream docs it actually
> would be „IETF Review or RFC Required with Expert Review“… Amanda,
> does that still makes sense to you?
>
> [AB] That works for us too. I think that in that case we would call it
> “IETF Review or Expert Review with RFC Required,” to make it clear
> that Expert Review is only modifying one of the procedures.

Thanks for the continued feedback.  Here is the current wording.  Please
let us know it that seems good:

   This document defines a 7-bit "glt" field in the range of 0x20-0x7f,
   for which IANA is to create and maintain a new registry entitled "TCP
   encryption protocol identifiers" under the "Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP) Parameters" registry.  The initial contents of the TCP
   encryption protocol identifier registry is shown in Table 2.  This
   document allocates one TEP identifier (0x20) for experimental use.
   In case the TEP identifier space proves too small, identifiers in the
   range 0x70-0x7f are reserved to enable a future update to this
   document to define extended identifier values.  Assignments are to be
   made upon satisfying either of two policies defined in [RFC8126]:
   "IETF Review" or (for non-IETF stream specifications) "Expert Review
   with RFC Required."  IANA will furthermore provide early allocation
   [RFC7120] to facilitate testing before RFCs are finalized.

Thanks,
David