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

David Mazieres <> Thu, 16 November 2017 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F1012711A; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tpVIxoSR0Fzw; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:806d:1::9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D13126B71; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vAG1k9ct010498; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dm@localhost) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id vAG1k8Kg084809; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:08 -0800 (PST)
From: David Mazieres <>
To: Amanda Baber <>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>, Eric Rescorla <>, "Black, David" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Reply-To: David Mazieres expires 2018-02-13 PST <>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:46:07 -0800
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Working group mailing list for TCP Increased Security \(tcpinc\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 01:46:33 -0000

Amanda Baber <> 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.