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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 14 November 2017 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 13AB8128C9C for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:30:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Wc_TgxPJ0gVa for <tcpinc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:30:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22c.google.com (mail-qt0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33B62128ACA for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id n61so22454336qte.10 for <tcpinc@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:30:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dPZev0f9ySdzSA728FkI9BWK+DzMjGuqQ/CipPACBUk=; b=Teuq8FGJJgil5nUMPlKLJ5NW1zkOqI31AqmkDJIx3zlcwZfXzDaTdETTLWVRN9oRRr oOOgZU1Bx4fvCIFjx4vZedNXpQp7waE29QoeqkRVjA7/IkehLzOKxUFLlwLyt9fHnnKx bnvSR54LOkcU5sSXXAW7vOlWNZ91C1RYxZEXMYwZC9tsJdEbz6qWt8hkJ56EoQEjMrOi XBVEe2zWzCfO6gn48sEutAu7dMo4YYEV6S+1q9PsF/5DY9ngOCPjl9+6rpWzh0gnNX24 9e666y3Cjm/v3EyGNyTPhbX5knB6DK6is+tJvU7iaF0qaFxT/JR5TKJa3Fdq7xsgw5lW LSag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dPZev0f9ySdzSA728FkI9BWK+DzMjGuqQ/CipPACBUk=; b=T6snnQwj7/q/38uEbUOrxrZq2m+41qB0R2OOQWYKSTUKI65dZdDLhuAb+03A/XJee9 1AlRBOjq+B9ahDLmlt5rizE47xPTqXZF8X3+934purYnfwFN1g+Ny0LTTBh2J0HqOawQ qRTLpWb8tPsSU2D9Izc592emjTKjQRey4zsN/DmeMB2H75vI4a/svstTDd4rL4M4XPHK l6r/p/6jmOBBTDTU7zq6TTt8s6QjezKgEE0TflBUfeYQRu+LW/Y1O28HqCQiEQ/vFzUh XrNqo/laI9y3j28Zu4bSVOpfUg+CO9J3HydA7DCpE+9fRfi5seyBSM+FkhtI9NQUmxpU q/tQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6/HoVHStZL4s/s/dgmHancsWfiDk2nCgmL1Mj5k7Xu+RMuBoqD QE1+PE2W0W2a2q+5jzrt9d6FRW66PxZNDDJpyl7yXg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZAHJXj8Tdew7knxXlXmwvrTXid1ZlsA8aMUhWg+JV/b5EpnxfyJm6tBhXcInLLwVWF8ZAd7tTOipMKAmPhAs8=
X-Received: by 10.37.162.129 with SMTP id c1mr6565620ybi.419.1510630211229; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:30:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.61.12 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 19:29:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D8CC2964-B7C3-44B5-A104-64FB8F628CD2@kuehlewind.net>
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>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:29:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPKTpXZCH3dERwDz1E6F8B0U6cGwOHM4yuOhPvJS9+S7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, David Mazieres <dm-list-tcpcrypt@scs.stanford.edu>, Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@iana.org>, "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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0828d3f820ad7e055de901c7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpinc/pjhZTczOLEi4Wrt3je2nJeDOqm8>
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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:30:15 -0000

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:

> Only on this point:
>
> > Am 14.11.2017 um 11:07 schrieb Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>om>:
> >
> > --[3]-- IANA registry policy for TEP registry
> >
> >
> >
> > At least my suggestion of IETF Review was in part to see whether more
> strict review would be appropriate – that appears not to be the case, so …
> >
> >
> >
> > I like Amanda’s suggestion of: “Expert Review with RFC Required”   That
> should result in two security reviews of a new TEP, both of which could
> halt a weak one.  Looking at the Independent Submission track as the “path
> of least resistance” that would be the IETF Security Area (ADs and
> Directorate) as part of RFC publication plus an IANA expert review as part
> of codepoint assignment.  Thank you, Amanda.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have to admit that Ekr is right that anyone can do arbitrarily stupid
> things on their own – what we can stop is misuse of IETF’s good name and
> IANA registration in support of that sort of stupidity.
> >
> >
> > Well, ultimately this is a WG decision, but we actually have tried this
> approach in TLS and other WGs and it doesn't work well. People grab code
> points and we have to deal with that, and we also have to spend a lot of WG
> time doing useless vetting when people just want a code point.
> >
> Ekr, not sure what your recommendation is but the previous discussion was
> that it is encouraged to ask for early allocation in the (RFC) process,
> however, we would like to finally end up with a spec in an RFC for all TEPs.
>

My recommendation is not to use the IANA registry to gatekeep on what
people deploy and instead do what TLS has moved towards, namely making the
bar for registering a code point low but that have the bar to a
*recommended* code point be a standards track RFC.

As I said, it's a WG decision to decide what to do.

-Ekr


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?
>
> Mirja
>
>