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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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