Re: [TLS] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 16 August 2019 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16DF120024; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NNPllZ8mckxl; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 AC6A1120013; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x7G3dVbh017536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 23:39:34 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 22:39:31 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tls-grease@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org, sean@sn3rd.com, tls@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190816033931.GI88236@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <156588466304.15861.9219490518200903631.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <156588466304.15861.9219490518200903631.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/24xVfcS0Smm62tRqEjWMkkP7nVk>
Subject: Re: [TLS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-ietf-tls-grease-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:39:39 -0000

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:57:43AM -0700, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-grease/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sorry one more comment/question I forgot earlier: Why is this document
> informational? Shouldn't it be at least experimental?

I added a note to the shepherd writeup's "intended document status" entry:

AD NOTE: Note that this has been successfully deployed for
over a year; it's not really an "experiment" anymore but rather
a useful thing that people do, both in TLS and elsewhere.  This
is informational in the sense that "here is a thing you can do,
and some information about why you might want to do it".  There's
no real protocol -- you send some codepoints and expect the other
endpoint to not change behavior as a result -- so it doesn't make sense
as a proposed standard.  I suppose one could argue that it is a BCP
since it is for the health of the ecosystem, but that does not really
feel like a good match.  So to me, Informational is the right status.

-Ben