Re: [TLS] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: (with DISCUSS)

That is a perfect answer, and I will clear my discuss now, and let you all
do the right thing, whatever you decide that is.

Barry

On Saturday, May 16, 2015, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> First, I don't think there's much energy for this issue but we
> should get it sorted and move on.
>
> So, how about if we add that this updates 5246 and leave it at that?
>
> The meaning there is that anyone who writes a new implementation
> of 5246 really ought also do this too.
>
> I don't think there's any possible harm to adding that and doing
> so achieves whatever possible good effect there might be from the
> addition of any "Updates" relationship.
>
> If I hear nothing, I'll add an RFC editor note to that effect in
> a few days and hopefully that'll be sufficient for Barry to clear
> his discuss. (Barry, if not, please say what would work.)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On 14/05/15 09:58, Karthikeyan Bhargavan wrote:
> > The session-hash draft has roughly the same impact as RFC5746, which
> says:
> > "Updates: 5246, 4366, 4347, 4346, 2246"
> >
> > We would be happy to add this list or a subset.
> >
> > Other RFCs affected by the current proposal are: rfc5929, rfc5705,
> rfc5746.
> >
> > Should we note these in any way, other than as Informative References?
> >
> > Best,
> > Karthik
> >
> >
> > On 14 May 2015, at 10:52, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Folks - I note this didn't get an answer. I don't recall that the WG
> >> considered it, and I'm sure if it had the conclusion could have gone
> >> either way (and a random choice would have been fine too:-) but can
> >> you confirm or correct me on that please? If you can do it before the
> >> telechat today (by ~1400 UTC) that'd be great.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> S.
> >>
> >> On 09/05/15 23:52, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> >>> draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: Discuss
> >>>
> >>> 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-session-hash/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> DISCUSS:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> This is a DISCUSS purely because I want to discuss it; whatever the
> >>> result is, I will be clearing the DISCUSS, and not delaying the
> document
> >>> on this point:  The last paragraph of Section 4 makes me wonder whether
> >>> this should "update" 5246.  Basically, while this is an extension
> (which
> >>> wouldn't normally use "updates"), it's one that you're proposing as
> >>> standard behavior, and not really as an extension.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TLS mailing list
> >>> TLS@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >>>
> >
>
>